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

76–017 2012

HOMESTAR: JOB CREATION THROUGH HOME 

ENERGY RETROFITS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 18, 2010 

Serial No. 111–105 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

BARON HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

ELIOT ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JANE HARMAN, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 1 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 5 

Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 6 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 6 

Hon. Peter Welch, a Representative in Congress from the State of Vermont, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 7 

Hon. John Barrow, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 8 

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, opening statement .................................................................................... 9 

Hon. Jane Harman, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 10 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 100 

WITNESSES

Cathy Zoi, Assistant Secretary, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, Department of Energy ........................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 121 

Larry Laseter, President, Masco Home Services .................................................. 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

John Engler, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Association 

of Manufacturers .................................................................................................. 36 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Michael Thaman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Owens Corning ........ 44 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Christopher A.S. Pratt, Vice President, Construction Development Services, 

LLC ........................................................................................................................ 49 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 140 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of Consumers Energy Company, Michigan, submitted by Mr. Dingell ......................................................................................................................... 106 

Statement of Laborers’ International Union of North America, submitted 

by Ms. Capps ........................................................................................................ 112 

Statement of six public health organizations, submitted by Ms. Capps ............. 114 

Statement of the National Association of Realtors, submitted by Mr. Stearns .. 115 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
(1) 

HOMESTAR: JOB CREATION THROUGH HOME 

ENERGY RETROFITS 

THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Markey, Doyle, Inslee, Melancon, McNerney, Welch, Dingell, Capps, Harman, Baldwin, Barrow, 

Waxman (ex officio), Upton, Stearns, Shimkus, Pitts, Burgess, Scalise, Griffith and Barton (ex officio). 

Staff present: Bruce Wolpe, Senior Advisor; Greg Dotson, Chief 

Counsel, Energy and Environment; John Jimison, Senior Counsel; 

Michael Goo, Counsel; Melissa Cheatham, Professional Staff Member; Caitlin Haberman, Special Assistant; Peter Ketcham-Colwill, 

Special Assistant; Lindsay Vidal, Special Assistant; Aaron Cutler, 

Minority Counsel; Mary Neumayr, Minority Counsel; Andrew 

Spring, Minority Professional Staff; and Garrett Golding, Minority 

Legislative Analyst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY. Good morning. A few hours from now March Madness will officially begin, although for anyone who has walked the 

Capitol Hill halls in the last few days, the madness seems to have 

already started. Unfortunately, my alma mater, Boston College, 

missed the tournament. So since I cannot root for my home team, 

today I will root for HomeStar. Instead of watching players score 

buckets by banking the ball off the backboard window, today we 

will talk about families banking bucks through energy-efficient 

windows and I can guarantee one thing, the HomeStar Program 

will give people a much better return on investment then filling out 

an NCAA bracket. 

HomeStar is our new three-point play for American families during this economic recovery. One, it saves energy. Two, it saves 

money. Three, it creates jobs. 

So what is HomeStar? It is a program designed to help every 

homeowner looking for a little extra help to make their home more 

efficient by saving energy. The program will provide homeowners 

rebates for purchasing and installing more efficient windows, doors, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

insulation and other home improvements that will cover energy 

bills while jumpstarting our manufacturing and labor sectors. 

HomeStar was designed to give customers their rebates quickly 

and reimburse contractors within 30 days. It will, under my direction, also include a do-it-yourself provision that allows people to receive rebates for buying and installing insulation materials without 

going through a contractor. 

HomeStar was designed to reduce energy costs in several ways. 

Homeowners receive rebates on products and installation. They 

may also benefit from a loan program to offset the remaining cost 

of the project. Finally, homeowners save on reduced heating and 

cooling costs. HomeStar efficiency upgrades are estimated to save 

homeowners over $1 billion of home energy expenses in 2011, and 

$9.2 billion over 10 years. 

And finally, HomeStar was designed to help American workers 

get back on their feet through energy-efficient construction and 

manufacturing jobs. The products in the Silver Star portion of the 

bill are largely manufactured in the United States. Creating a consumer market for these products through HomeStar will help save 

and create approximately 168,000 jobs in the next 10 years. Most 

of these jobs will be available in the next 2 years. That is why 

there is such a broad support for HomeStar. Fortune 500 companies, small contractors, environmental advocates and lumber manufacturers are just some of the organizations that have supported 

HomeStar. 

I would be remiss if I did not mention the hard work of my colleague, Peter Welch, who has been a champion of HomeStar and 

a long time supporter of building efficiency as evidenced by his provision in the Waxman-Markey legislation that passed the House 

last June. Right now, we don’t know who will win March Madness. 

We do know that HomeStar is a winning program for hundreds of 

thousands of American workers, families and our ongoing efforts to 

spur a lasting, sustainable economic recovery through clean energy 

jobs and technologies. 

That completes the opening statement of the chair. 

We now turn and recognize the ranking member, the gentleman 

from Michigan, Mr. Upton. 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and sorry that your 

Boston College team didn’t make it. Neither did my Wolverines. 

Maybe we could get the majority leader to do a resolution like he 

did for Maryland on the House floor, complimenting them on a 

wonderful season although they didn’t win the ACC tournament, 

like we did yesterday. 

Mr. MARKEY. But they are in the tournament. 

Mr. UPTON. Not the Wolverines. 

Mr. MARKEY. No, but I mean the Terrapins are in the tournament. 

Mr. UPTON. They are in but they didn’t win the ACC. They lost 

the first game of the tournament but we will see how you fill out 

your bracket. 

Mr. MARKEY. But they are still alive. They are more like the 

HomeStar Program than Boston College. 

Mr. UPTON. Yes, yes, we will see how far they go. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. I appreciate the hearing today and I have always 

been a proponent of all of the above energy policies. All of the 

above isn’t just about all sources of energy. It also includes conservation and energy conservation. Upgrading energy efficiency in 

homes clearly is the low-hanging fruit in reducing overall energy 

demand and has the added benefit of directly lowering home energy bills which is of critical importance for working families that 

are struggling to get by. 

I support energy efficiency and there are bipartisan ways to create incentives for home energy efficiency upgrades but I am not 

sure that this legislation fits that bill. The HomeStar legislation 

that we are looking at today could prove to be far too expensive at 

a time of massive budget deficits and runaway spending. We don’t 

know what the cost will be because the bill as you know as written 

is a blank check to the appropriators, such sums as may be necessary, as the legislation states, so how much are we talking about? 

Is it $6 billion, is it $20 billion, it could be more. I don’t support 

signing a blank check. 

With all due respect to the Department of Energy, they are not 

equipped to run a program of this magnitude regardless of whether 

it is $1 billion or $20 billion. According to the GAO, only 9,100 of 

a planned 593,000 homes were weatherized this last year, 9,100 

out of 593,000. That is more than a rounding error. In my home 

State of Michigan, 395 homes were weatherized in 2009 at a cost 

of $4 million so there is still another $240 million left unspent in 

the Stimulus Package that was passed last year. Nationally, about 

$522 million in Stimulus funds have been spent so far on weatherization. That is about 10 percent of the $5 billion set aside. Why 

are we going to throw countless billions on top of that? Clearly, 

more money is not the answer or the issue. 

Besides the runaway spending and DOE’s inability to administer the first $5 billion allocated, there are other problems as well. Good 

policy would suggest a HomeStar-type program should complement 

state-regulated energy efficiency programs not disrupt them. Existing energy efficiency programs are the best way to distribute funding with the greatest level of quality assurance, not a giant, new 

government bureaucracy. 

This legislation as I look at it does pick winners and losers, both 

technology winners and losers, and labor winners and losers. That 

is not the job of this body as we seek to promote energy efficiency. 

It seems to me that many energy efficient technologies were left off 

the list solely because their manufacturers weren’t represented in 

the HomeStar Coalition. That is not necessarily the American way. 

The American people have grown quite tired of these backroom 

deals and I hope that we can remedy this situation when we markup the bill, perhaps as early as next week. 

I would also note that the President’s budget called for a freeze in spending so where does that fit in when you look at a new $23 

billion program? Now, we in the Congress now have passed PAYGO 

legislation, where are the offsets? I am not sure that this is the 

best answer and I yield back my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
4 

The chair recognizes the Chairman Emeritus of our committee, 

Mr. Dingell. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing today. I am pleased that the subcommittee is setting 

forth an aggressive agenda for the HomeStar Program. 

I want to take a moment to welcome Larry Laseter from Masco 

Home Services. Welcome, Larry. Masco is headquartered in Taylor, 

Michigan and is an outstanding corporate citizen of the State of 

Michigan so welcome to you, Mr. Laseter, and we look forward to 

your testimony. Also, Governor Engler, it is a pleasure to see you 

this morning. 

HomeStar holds much promise in three important areas. First 

and foremost, it will create jobs. Second, it will lead to greater residential energy efficiency. Third, it has the potential to lead to significant consumer savings. 

In terms of jobs, my home State of Michigan is in a desperate 

state. Our current unemployment rate is 14.3 percent and Wayne 

County, my home county, has an unemployment rate of 15.7 percent. Between 2001 and 2009, Michigan lost nearly 43 percent of 

its construction jobs. The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, we need jobs 

and we need them desperately. 

This is a program which has the potential to put 168,000 workers 

back on the job. Not only will this help individual workers but it 

will also help small businesses, a portion of our economy which has 

been particularly hard hit. We cannot afford not to move forward. 

According to HomeStar Coalition, the energy efficiency gains 

have the potential to equal the removal of 615,000 automobiles 

from the road. This is particularly important since the Senate has 

yet to act on broader climate change legislation. 

Finally, the program will be of great benefit to homeowners. It 

could save families as much as $9.4 billion in energy costs over the 

next 10 years. In addition, it makes homes more valuable. In these 

economic times, these increased savings and increased home values 

cannot be underestimated. 

Mr. Chairman, HomeStar follows on the heels of the widely successful Cash for Clunkers Program in which the Federal Government provided consumer vouchers to purchase new, more fuel-efficient vehicles. The initial allocation of $1 billion was exhausted 

very quickly and we had to secure an additional $2 billion in funding for the program. Cash for Clunkers was responsible for the sale 

of nearly 700,000 new vehicles in the United States during its run 

and it added nearly one percent to the third quarter gross domestic 

product growth. Cash for Clunkers has been hailed as one of the 

most successful of all recent Government economic stimulus programs. According to the Center for Automotive Research (CAR), 

Cash for Clunkers created approximately 40,200 new jobs nationally of which 5,800 were in Michigan. 

I ask unanimous consent to submit the testimony of Consumer’s 

Energy, a fine American corporation situated in the southeast corner of Michigan, from the Senate Committee on Energy and NatVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:20 Nov 27, 2012 Jkt 076017 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A017.XXX A017

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
5 

ural Resources on this matter. And, Mr. Chairman, I look forward 

to working with the subcommittee on this important legislation and 

I commend you again for having this hearing. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman and we will by unanimous 

consent include that material in the record. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. MARKEY. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank you for convening this hearing today on the 

proposed legislation to incentivize home energy retrofits and reduce 

unemployment in the construction sector. With the unemployment 

rate at nearly 10 percent in the United States, I believe that it is 

crucial that Congress focuses on creating a climate that promotes 

job creation. By the same token, I also believe that sound energy 

efficiency measures will certainly decrease the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere. They will also encourage 

our country to strengthen our energy security and end our dependence on foreign energy resources. 

The legislation that is being proposed to institute a rebate-type 

program has many promising aspects to it. Under the Silver Star 

Program, rebates will be awarded to participating contractors and 

vendors who perform qualifying energy-savings measures. Under 

the Gold Star Program, rebates will be awarded to participating 

contractors and vendors for retrofits that achieve home energy savings. However, I am concerned that Section 13A provides that, 

‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act such 

sums as may be necessary.’’ 

We are operating in a fiscally constrained environment. It is our 

job on this committee to authorize a dollar amount. While the Senate version calls for a $6 billion program, I am greatly concerned 

about deficit spending or whatever pay-for may be used to offset 

this spending. Additionally, I am concerned that the implementation of this program will be inefficient. Mr. Chairman, I do agree 

that creating an environment that stimulates jobs is the key however it is of the utmost importance that we do this prudently. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and I thank 

you and yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch. 

Oh, I am sorry. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle. I apologize. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for the record, the 

University of Pittsburgh is in the NCAA Tournament. 

Mr. UPTON. Do they get a resolution today too? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
6 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. DOYLE. I want to thank you for convening this hearing today 

to explore the HomeStar Program that President Obama proposed 

in his State of the Union Address. Over the past several years, I 

have been very interested in the green building movement and the 

technologies and innovations this movement has brought forward. 

As some of you know, the City of Pittsburgh is at the forefront of 

the green building movement. Innovations by our researchers, work 

by our construction companies and a real eye to the future has created innovations that I believe can benefit each and every Congressional District in our Nation. The time for building without concern 

for energy costs is behind us, and the very same can be said about 

energy efficiency. As my constituents are faced with rising energy 

costs in a recession, they are struggling to find ways to cut their 

energy usage but the truth remains that many of the investments 

needed to make your home more energy efficient are financially impossible for families in today’s economy. 

The HomeStar Program will offer families hoping to cut their energy costs, the chance to make energy-efficient upgrades to their 

homes with the promise of an immediate rebate from the contractor 

they hire to do this work. If the Weatherization Assistance Program in Pennsylvania is any indication, HomeStar will be a very 

popular program in my State. 

Another opportunity with the HomeStar Program is the job creation potential. The program will increase employment in the construction sector which we all know has been particularly hard hit 

in the last year. And the manufacturing sector which is imperative 

to the economy in Pittsburgh and really, all across America is set 

to benefit because the materials used in HomeStar projects will be 

almost entirely domestically sourced. I can’t think of a greater winwin right now, Mr. Chairman, unless of course the Tea Party decides to endorse a single-payer system today. 

I look forward to the testimony today as we hammer out the details of how this program will be run. I do have a few questions 

regarding the administration of the program and making sure that 

the work done is quality and provides measurable savings to homeowners. Mr. Chairman, thank you for getting the ball rolling on 

this excellent program and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great, the gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the Chairman of the full committee, Mr. 

Waxman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Chairman Markey. Thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

Today our Nation continues its courageous struggle to overcome 

the worst recession in 70 years. No sector of the economy has been 

harder hit than the home construction services sector. Today more 

than one in four construction workers are unemployed, more than 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
7 

twice the national average. We need these workers and their skills 

more than ever. 

We must seize the opportunity to modernize our homes and 

buildings and ensure their efficient use of energy. Ten percent of 

global greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to American 

buildings. Improving the efficiency of those buildings would allow 

us to reduce our carbon pollution and save money at the same 

time. 

The HomeStar proposal is compelling because it addresses both 

of these problems simultaneously. First, the proposal will put a lot 

of people back to work making our homes more efficient. At the 

same time, it can stimulate the manufacturing sector by increasing 

demand for energy-efficient products. By some estimates, 

HomeStar will create more than 130,000 direct and indirect near 

term jobs. Second, HomeStar will cut our carbon pollution in the 

near term and be an important down payment for even more successful reductions in the future. 

I want to commend Chairman Markey and Representative Welch 

for their leadership on this proposal. They have had the vision to 

see the tremendous economic and environmental benefits of nurturing energy efficiency retrofits into a major, national undertaking. President Obama has lent his unequivocal support to this 

initiative. We now have the opportunity in our committee to make 

HomeStar a priority and deliver jobs and energy efficiency to 

America’s housing and commercial office stock throughout the 

country. 

I would also like to welcome today’s witnesses, Assistant Secretary Zoi, Governor Engler, Mr. Laseter, Mr. Thaman and Mr. 

Pratt. I appreciate your joining us today and look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great, the Chairman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETER WELCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Chairman Markey. I very much appreciate you convening this hearing. Thank you Ranking Member 

Upton. 

We introduced RECRP, the National Residential Commercial 

Residential Retrofit Program that was passed by this committee 

and the House. It was a coalition that identified, like we have 

today, the incredible potential of the low-hanging fruit of energy efficiency and today we have witnesses who show that this is bipartisan. It represents something powerful across the country and I 

appreciate Secretary Zoi, Mr. Laseter, Governor Engler, Mr. 

Thaman and Mr. Pratt for being here. You are on the front lines. 

You know how it works. You know it is real and you are here to 

testify and demonstrate that this is a public and private partnership, market-based approach to getting something done. 

HomeStar is going to put contractors to work. It is going to create manufacturing jobs because the source is as Mr. Doyle said, 

American and it is going to help small-town hardware stores as 

well as the big box retailers. It creates 168,000 jobs this just small, 

modified program. Three million American families can cut their 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
8 

energy bills by $10 billion, $10 billion over 10 years and it reduces 

obviously our dependence on foreign oil. 

In Vermont, we are an efficiency State. We have an efficient utility. We have created thousands of jobs. We have reduced consumption by seven percent and we save folks money. That is a good deal 

for America. What we have seen is that this can work and with 

HomeStar we can replicate what is being done across this country 

and it is going to do those things that need to be done about jobs, 

about energy savings and about reducing our dependence on foreign oil. 

What is also so much a tremendous opportunity is that we can 

do this together. This Congress is locked in partisan battles and 

the real differences between us on many issues but this is an opportunity for us to find common ground about jobs, about energy 

independence and about putting our folks to work, and I am so 

grateful for you that you are here to testify about this and have 

us focus on doing something real, something useful, something necessary and do it together. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great, the gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Griffith. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this project. I 

know that it certainly sounds good theoretically and we hope that 

it works out practically but we know that we have had in the past 

some theoretical successes but some implementation problems with 

just such a project as this as it gets down into the communities so 

I am hoping that we solve those or anticipate those problems as we 

get to them, before we get to them so to speak. And I must say that 

energy efficiency is an important step in making our country less 

dependent on foreign oil but because this committee is concerned 

with energy in its totality, I think we not only need this sort of a 

program but we also need to make sure that we are not sending 

a mixed message to our energy producers and our outer-continental 

shelf 5-year plan should be a big part of this as well. And I appreciate the opportunity to participate with you and make sure that 

when it gets down to the contractor and the window manufacturers 

we don’t get into a bureaucratic nightmare of paperwork and 3 or 

4 months of form filling out and then no response. So I know those 

are on your mind so thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to 

participate. 

Mr. MARKEY. All right, thank you, the gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow is recognized. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARROW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. BARROW. I thank the chair. 

I am pleased that President Obama chose my hometown of Savannah earlier this month to come and roll out the Administration’s support for this program and I think that it has got tremendous promise. I want to quickly register just a couple of areas of 

concern to me based on what we have learned from prior efforts in 

the past. Mention has already been made of the fact that the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
9 

Weatherization Program in the Recovery Act hasn’t gone as far as 

we would like. It is not that the program hasn’t been—the money 

has been wasted. The money hasn’t been spent yet and comments 

have been made that what we don’t need is something that is impossible to administer or something that is impossibly bureaucratic. I happen to believe that this is a direct response to our experience with the Recovery Act’s effort to plus-up existing programs 

that are relatively high maintenance. I remember a great line in 

the movie ‘‘When Harry Met Sally’’ when they are talking about relationships that are high maintenance and low maintenance and 

the girl asked the guy well what am I and he said well you are 

the worst kind. You are high maintenance but you think you are 

low maintenance, and I kind of feel like that is what the Recovery 

Act was. It took a high maintenance program but we treat it as if 

it is low maintenance and put all kinds of resources into it and it 

just hasn’t gotten through. This is a low maintenance approach and 

the more user-friendly we can make this, I think the more effective 

it will be and that I think is an important first step. 

Now, I want to know what we can do to actually make this not 

just think it is low maintenance but actually be low maintenance 

and I want to explore with you all and get your ideas about we can 

make this as efficient as possible. Also, God bless the do-ityourselfers out there to the extent that we are going to authorize 

some relief and help with folks who can do it themselves. That is 

important. We might not be helping the contracting community 

quite as much but the manufacturing base is going to get a boost 

out of this and the homeowner who is going to have sweat equity 

in this is going to have the energy savings and efficiency to show 

for it so I want to explore those two areas. I want to thank Mr. 

Welch especially for his leadership is this area and with that, Mr. 

Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great, the gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess is 

recognized. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, energy efficiency is the common ground in a lot of our 

fights that we have on this committee and really efficiency measures are some of the quickest and most concrete ways of solving the 

energy problems and move this country to a more—to a cleaner 

and more sustainable energy future and the market proves this. 

Upgrade your home’s windows and insulation and as a consumer, 

you watch your bills drop. Rather than have this committee spend 

its time with climate bills that run the risk of further damaging 

our already fragile economy, I have consistently maintained that 

both sides of the aisle can come together on commonsense issues 

like efficiency helping to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and 

make our country a greener place to live. 

And not only have I advocated here in the halls of Congress, I 

have also promoted it within the walls of my own home. My wife 

and I built a house in north Texas 4 years ago. We wanted to make 

the investment and use energy efficient techniques at the time of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
10 

building because we knew it would pay off down the road and as 

you can imagine one of the biggest challenges in Texas is a long, 

hot summer. We found there were numerous ways to keep out the 

heat including focusing on low-E glass in the windows, higher efficiency air conditioners, an efficient attic system and foam insulation in the walls. We also installed light color shingles on the roof 

to reflect sunlight and installed a tankless water heater which is 

more efficient than the tank model. Each measure helped us lower 

our consumption on our energy bills to the point that they were 40 

percent lower than our previous years’ bills when the house was 

finished. 

Energy efficiency shouldn’t be something that we necessarily 

need to incentivize at the Federal level. Show people how their bills 

will drop and they will be running to buy a new water heater or 

to re-shingle their roof. Energy efficiency is something that we can 

promote without having to spend a single Federal dollar, certainly, 

without having to spend dollars that we don’t have. The cost of this 

bill should concern everyone in this room. In the draft before us 

today, this committee cedes its power as an authorizing committee 

to the Appropriations Committee allowing appropriators rather 

than the authorizers to determine how much money is in the program. Regardless of ideology, members of this committee on both 

sides of the dais should be concerned over the precedent set by delegating that authority to another committee. Allowing phrases such 

as ‘‘Such sums as may be necessary’’ could be used for a program 

of this magnitude is simply giving a blank check to a Federal agency, something this Congress can no longer afford to do. 

And the devil is in the details with legislation such as this. I am 

grateful the drafters desire to get this program moving quickly 

once the bill has cleared both sides of the House or both sides of 

the Capitol but I am concerned that the finite list of approved upgrades, this committee is simply picking winners and losers for 

what technology will be eligible for efficiency rebates and I think 

more attention needs to be placed on ensuring that this list is as 

comprehensive as possible for the wide range of efficiency upgrades 

that are available to homeowners today. 

I thank the chairman for his indulgence and I will yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great, the gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Harman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANE HARMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This committee is not new to the issue of energy efficiency in 

homes and nor is my own district. Mr. Upton and I collaborated 

pretty successfully I think on lighting efficiency standards which 

are now part of Federal law and we are continuing to collaborate 

successfully I think on outdoor lighting standards which we will introduce as a stand-alone bill soon and which we hope will be part 

of the energy package that we pass some time later this Congress 

if we pass an energy package. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
11 

In my own district, I just want to call attention to a family in 

Hermosa Beach, the Fortunatos, who are creating what they call 

a net-zero house. That means the house will produce as much energy as it uses. It is a revolution. It is not off the grid. It is the 

grid and Southern California Edison will move shortly to install 

smart grids which are also getting Stimulus Bill funding in 

Hermosa Beach so that other families can do the same thing. 

In Manhattan Beach, there is a company called Windstream 

which produces small, rooftop wind turbines. Windstream and a 

lighting company Ledtronics are partnering with the Fortunatos to 

make their house energy neutral. There is also a communications 

company in El Segundo which has put solar panels over its parking 

lots and they now produce 20 percent of the energy that company, 

a large communications company, uses. 

I have had solar panels on my rooftop in Venice, California for 

9 years and they generate the energy I need for hot water so there 

are lots of good local projects. There is a huge history here of bipartisanship and these proposals we will hear about today will build 

on the strong record we have in the committee and I am very 

pleased to be here and to welcome our witnesses. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great, the gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Capps. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will waive my opening 

statement in favor of the questions and look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great, the chair recognizes the gentleman from 

California, Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing this morning. I want to congratulate you and Mr. Welch 

for your leadership on this issue. 

I spent most of my career developing new energy technology and 

I can tell you it is hard work. It is dirty and the real low-hanging 

fruit is energy efficiency. I know Chairman Markey has beat that 

drum over and over and he is absolutely right. For every dollar you 

invest in energy efficiency, you get dollars back. 

And so I also can see there is a business right next to my office 

in California that is an energy efficiency. They go out and they look 

at homes. They see what needs to be done and they are making 

good money doing that and if we can incentivize that we are going 

to create thousands and thousands of jobs while helping our dependence on foreign oil. There is almost no downside that I can 

imagine for this bill so I look forward to what your testimony is 

and maybe make some improvements on the bill as we move forward but thank you for coming. 

And I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman and all time for opening 

statements has been completed so we will turn to our first witness. 

Our first witness is Ms. Cathy Zoi. She is the Assistant Secretary 

for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. Prior to joining the Obama Administration, Ms. 

Zoi served as founding CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection, 

as chief of staff on environmental policy in the Clinton Administration and as a former manager at the Environmental Protection 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
12 

Agency where she pioneered the Energy Star Program. Ms. Zoi, 

whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE CATHY ZOI, ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY, OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; LARRY LASETER, 

PRESIDENT, MASCO HOME SERVICES; THE HONORABLE 

JOHN ENGLER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS; MICHAEL THAMAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OWENS CORNING; AND CHRISTOPHER A.S. PRATT, VICE 

PRESIDENT, CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, 

LLC. 

STATEMENT OF CATHY ZOI 

Ms. ZOI. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Upton. 

Mr. MARKEY. If you could turn on your microphone please and 

just move it in a little bit closer. 

Ms. ZOI. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today and it is a pleasure to appear. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK, just move that microphone down just a little. 

Just push it down just a little, OK, good. 

Ms. ZOI. How is that? Better, OK. 

Thanks for the opportunity to appear before you and it is a pleasure to appear with such a panel of knowledgeable industry witnesses. I will make my remarks brief and I have submitted a 

longer statement for the record. 

We have a tremendous opportunity right now to create jobs and 

save money for homeowners all across the country. There are approximately 130 million homes in the United States, very few of 

which are as efficient as they could be. Almost all of these homes 

could benefit from additional insulation, caulking, upgraded heating and air conditioning systems and other improvements. Just as 

critically, there is a workforce standing by ready to make those improvements. The overall construction sector currently faces a 27 

percent unemployment rate. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly two million construction jobs have been lost since December, 2007, two million hardworking Americans ready and anxious to find ways to apply their skills to new jobs. With the Home 

Retrofit Program, we can transform these two challenges into an 

enormous opportunity, tapping workers skills and availability to 

help American families save money and energy. Americans are 

spending over $200 billion per year on energy, money that could 

pay for housing, tuition or other basic necessities. As the President 

has said, if you saw $20 bills flying out your window, you would 

try to grab them so let us try to make it easier for American families to prevent their hard-earned cash from flying out of leaky, inefficient homes while we create good-paying jobs for folks across the 

country. We can do just that through a Home Retrofit Program like 

the one the President called for in his State of the Union. 

Two weeks ago, the President outlined more details of what he 

has in mind for HomeStar Program, including rebates delivered directly to consumers, a $1,000 to $1,500 level of Silver Star rebates, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
13 

$3,000 Gold Star rebates for whole home retrofits, oversight to ensure quality installations and support for financing at the local 

level. Through this program we can create tens of thousands of jobs 

while achieving substantial reductions in energy use, up to the 

equivalent of the entire output of several 500 megawatt coal-fire 

power plants each year. Consumers taking advantage of the program are likely to save between $200 and $500 per year in their 

energy costs while improving the comfort and the value of their 

homes. 

I want to thank the members of the subcommittee and other 

members who have been working tirelessly on efforts to create legislative language that follows the President’s vision. As the legislative process moves forward, we will continue to work with Congress 

on the bill until it is enacted. Today I am glad the subcommittee 

has convened the hearing and I am happy to answer questions regarding how the HomeStar proposal or how the Department would 

actually implement it once it is in law. My goal as Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is to harness 

the ingenuity and ability of the American workforce to help families save energy and money. Retrofitting millions of American 

homes can truly transform energy consumption throughout the Nation while putting people to work. Last year, Secretary Chu said, 

‘‘In the next several decades, I believe that energy efficiency is our 

most powerful tool for reducing our carbon emissions and reducing 

our energy bills.’’ While home energy retrofits could be crucial to 

realizing both of those goals while supporting American job creation. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this topic and 

I will gladly answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Zoi follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
14 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 20 here 76017A.001

STATEMENT OF 

CATHYZOI 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 18, 2010 
15 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 21 here 76017A.002

Good morning Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Upton, and distinguished members 

of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I 

consider it an honor to lead the Administration's efforts to advance and deploy energy 

efficiency and renewable energy solutions at this historic time. As this Subcommittee 

knows, we are in a moment of time that poses great challenges and opportunities in the 

energy field. I am excited about the opportunity to harness ideas and innovation to 

ensure our economic security, national security, and environmental security. Despite 

challenges, I am optimistic about the future and in particular about the areas where the 

Administration and Congress can work together to meet the Nation's energy challenges. 

With tremendous support from Congress, both through the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) and annual appropriations, we are 

transforming the clean energy landscape in the United States. In the Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) alone, we are investing more than $16 billion 

in Recovery Act funding toward projects ranging from large wind turbine blade testing in 

Boston to the development of advanced batteries in Michigan. These programs are 

creating jobs with investments in 56 states and U.S. Territories to encourage deployment 

of a full range of renewable energy sources and energy savings measures. In addition, 

EERE has provided support to the Department of the Treasury for $2.3 billion of grants 

in lieu of tax credits for projects that are expected to deploy more than 4 gigawatts of 

renewable energy, and another $2.3 billion in tax credits to domestic manufacturers of 

clean energy products. 

In addition to investing in renewable technologies, EERE is engaging in a full court press 

on energy efficiency. As Secretary Chu is fond of saying, energy efficiency isn't just 

low-hanging fruit; it's fruit lying on the ground. By reducing our energy consumption, 

we can create and support clean energy jobs, reduce our reliance on foreign sources of 

energy and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while saving money on the energy 

bills of everyday Americans. 

HOME ENERGY RETROFITS 

As you know, one of the best opportunities for energy efficiency is right in our own 

homes. Home energy retrofits can be a win-win-win. Consumers can win by cutting 

their utility bills and saving money, while getting a healthier, more comfortable living 

space for their families. Communities, employers, and employees can win by creating 

good jobs in the retrofit industry and at manufacturers that produce energy efficiency 

products, spurring the local economy and putting people back to work. The Nation can 

win by creating jobs, reducing our reliance on energy from foreign sources, reducing our 

carbon emissions, and slowing the effects of climate change. 

There are approximately 130 million homes in the United States. These homes account 

for about 33 percent of the Nation's total electricity demandl and consume approximately 

I Percentage derived from figures in the Annual Energy Review. Energy Information Administration. 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/aerltxt/ptb020Ia.html. February 2010. 

2 
16 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 22 here 76017A.003

22 percent of the Nation's energy2 while generating 21 percent of the Nation's overall 

carbon footprint,3 Roughly half of these homes were built before 1973, long before 

modem residential building codes came into effect.4 With so many older homes, and 

with advances in building technologies, there is a tremendous opportunity to upgrade 

home energy efficiency by insulating; caulking; improving heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning equipment (HVAC); tightening the building envelope; and adding other 

energy efficiency improvements. Existing techniques and technologies can reduce 

energy use by up to 40 percent per home and reduce associated GHG emissions by up to 

160 million metric tons by 2020. 5 

This vast potential for savings can be tapped only with a strong, well-trained American 

work force. The overall construction sector currently faces a 27.1 percent unemployment 

rate.6 Insulation-blowing trucks are standing idle, and many construction workers are 

anxious to find ways to apply their skills to new jobs. At the same time, Americans are 

paying over $200 billion per year in energy costs-money that could pay for housing, 

tuition, or other basic necessities.7 As the President has said, if you saw $20 bills flying 

out your window, you would try to grab them. So let's try to make it easier for American 

families to prevent their hard-eamed cash from flying out the doors, windows, and 

ceilings of inefficient homes. 

CHALLENGES 

To realize job creation, energy savings, and environmental benefits, making energy 

retrofits must be easier for homeowners. Three key barriers prevent Americans from 

taking advantage of cost-effective retrofits to their homes: difficulty finding information 

about which retrofit upgrades are best for their home; difficulty covering the up front cost 

ofthese investments; and difficulty finding knowledgeable, skilled workers.8 

These three barriers were outlined in the Recovery Through Retrofit strategy document 

released by Vice President Biden's Middle Class Task Force. In close collaboration with 

other agencies, DOE is pursuing a comprehensive approach to address these three 

barriers, which includes: 

• The creation of a home energy performance labeling system in collaboration with 

the RecovelY Through Retrofit to provide consumers with building energy 

information; 

2 Percentage derived from figures in the Annual Energy Review. Energy Information Administration. 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/aerltxtlptb020Ia.html. February 2010. 

3 Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Climate Change 101: Technological Solutions. January 2009. 

4 Energy Information Administration. Residential Energy Consumption Survey 2005: Home Energy Uses 

and Costs. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/ 

5 President's Middle Class Task Force and Council on Environmental Quality. RecovelY Through Retrofit 

report. October 2009. 

6 United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Industries at a Glance: Construction: NAlCS23. March 5, 2010. 

http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag23.htm 

7 Energy Information Administration. Residential Energy Consumption Survey 2005: Home Energy Uses 

and Costs. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2005/c&e/summary/pdfItablcus5.pdf 

8 McKinsey & Company. Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy. July 2009. 

3 
17 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 23 here 76017A.004

The expansion of rebate programs and appropriate financing mechanisms to 

provide homeowners with access to affordable mechanisms to cover the up front 

cost of energy efficiency improvements; and 

• The establishment of voluntary national standards for retrofit workforce training 

and certification to help protect consumers. 

DEPARTMENTAL RETROFIT SUPPORT 

The inter-agency Recovery Through Retrofit initiative, coordinated by the President's 

Council on Environmental Quality, seeks to lay the groundwork for a self-sustaining 

home energy efficiency retrofit industry. Additionally, the Department actively supports 

home energy retrofits in other ways, including a new Retrofit Ramp-Up program and the 

ongoing Weatherization Assistance and State Energy Programs. 

The Retrofit Ramp-Up program, the competitive portion of the Energy Efficiency and 

Conservation Block Grant program funded through the Recovery Act, could deliver 

important energy and monetary savings to communities that win awards. However, its 

greatest impact may be in demonstrating sustainable, replicable business models that 

other communities across the Nation can copy so that they can also drive job creation and 

energy savings in their own areas. The lessons learned from these projects-both 

successes and challenges-could enable the rest of the Nation to ramp up its energy 

efficiency efforts, fundamentally transforming the way the U.S. consumes energy. 

DOE will soon award up to $390 million of Recovery Act funds for this program, 

targeting whole-neighborhood building retrofits. The Department's goal is to fund 

projects demonstrating models for providing cost-effective energy upgrades for a large 

percentage of the residential, commercial, and public buildings in communities. EERE 

received a large volume of excellent proposals, far more than we will be able to fund. 

There is no shortage of good ideas or enthusiasm, and we hope to leverage the Recovery 

through Retrofit experience into a long term model where communities can sustain the 

efforts to retrofit whole blocks at a time. 

The Weatherization Assistance Program is current! y retrofitting thousands of homes each 

month, utilizing $5 billion of Recovery Act funds and $210 million from Fiscal Year 

2010 appropriations. This program primarily reaches low-income families, the elderly 

and the disabled, helping those with significant financial need save money on their 

energy bills. 

Some states are using portions of the $3.1 billion in Recovery Act funds allocated to the 

State Energy Program to create revolving loans funds that finance the deployment of 

energy efficiency technologies and support long lasting job creation. 

CURRENT PROPOSALS 

During the State of the Union, the President called on Congress to pass a program of 

incentives for homeowners who make energy efficiency investments in their homes. 

4 
18 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 24 here 76017A.005

Two weeks ago, the President outlined more details of a new "HOMES TAR" program 

that would help create jobs by encouraging American families to invest in energy saving 

home improvements. 

Key components of the HOMES TAR Program include: . 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Rebates delivered directly to consumers: Like the Cash for Clunkers program, 

consumers would be eligible for direct HOMESTAR rebates at the point of sale 

for a variety of energy-saving investments in their homes. A broad array of 

vendors, from small independent building material dealers, large national home 

improvement chains, energy efficiency installation professionals and utilities 

(including rural utilities) would market the rebates, provide them directly to 

consumers and then be reimbursed by the Federal Government. The rebates 

would also be marketed by the Environmental Protection Agency and trade 

associations whose member contractors participate in the program. 

$1,000 - $1,500 Silver Star Rebates: Consumers looking to have simple 

upgrades performed in their homes would be eligible for 50% rebates up to 

$1,000 - $1,500 for doing any of a straightforward set of upgrades, including: 

insulation, duct sealing, water heaters, HV AC units, windows and doors. Under 

Silver Star, consumers can chose a combination of upgrades for rebates up to a 

maximum of $3,000 per home. Rebates would be limited to the most energy 

efficient categories of upgrades-focusing on products made primarily in the 

United States and installed by certified contractors. 

$3000 Gold Star Rebates: Consumers interested in more comprehensive energy 

retrofits would be eligible for a $3,000 rebate for a whole home energy audit and 

subsequent retrofit tailored to achieve a 20% energy savings in their homes. 

Consumers could receive additional rebate amounts up to $8,000 for energy 

savings in excess of 20%. Gold Star would build on existing whole home retrofit 

programs, like the Environmental Protection Agency's successful Home 

Performance with Energy Star program. 

Oversight to Ensure Quality Installations: The program would require that 

contractors be certified to perform efficiency installations. Independent quality 

assurance providers would conduct field inspections after work is completed to 

ensure proper installation so consumers receive energy savings from their 

upgrades. 

Support for financing: The program would include support to State 

governments to provide financing options for consumers seeking to make 

efficiency investments in their homes. This will help ensure that consumers can 

afford to make these investments. 

The program may result in the creation of tens of thousands of jobs while achieving 

substantial reductions in energy use-up to the equivalent of the entire output of three 

500 megawatt coal-fired power plants each year. Consumers in the program are 

5 
19 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 25 here 76017A.006

anticipated to save between $200 - $500 per year in energy costs, while improving the 

comfort and value of their homes. 

As this Subcommittee and the full Committee consider legislation to make the President's 

idea a reality, the Department stands ready to work with the Committee on this bill 

through the legislative process. The Administration has already been in consultation with 

Members working on draft proposals, and last week, I testified before the Senate Energy 

and Natural Resources Committee on this very topic. I commend all of the legislators 

from both Chambers and both sides of the aisle for their hard work on this issue. 

I am happy to answer any questions members of this Committee may have regarding the 

proposal or how the Department would administer such a program were it to be signed 

into law. 

CONCLUSION 

Retrofitting millions of American homes may truly transform energy consumption 

throughout the Nation. It may also put people to work in good, domestic jobs while 

saving Americans money and enabling significant contributions toward GHG emissions 

reduction targets. Public investments can lay the foundation for a vibrant private-sector 

led retrofit industry. Workers can get trained and certified, small contractors can grow 

their businesses, and millions can save money on their energy bills. 

On October 19, 2009, Secretary Chu stated, "In the next several decades, I believe that 

energy efficiency is our most powerful tool for reducing our carbon emissions and 

reducing our energy bills." Home energy retrofits could be critical to realizing both of 

those goals, while supporting American job creation. I thank the Committee for its hard 

work on energy efficiency and specifically in crafting the legislative proposal being 

considered today. I sincerely hope I have the opportunity to implement this program 

soon with the aim of achieving our interconnected goals of creating good clean energy 

jobs, reducing our reliance on foreign sources of energy, and reducing our greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this topic. I will gladly answer your 

questions. 

6 
20 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

And our next witness is Mr. Larry Laseter. He is the President 

of WellHome, a subsidiary of a leading home improvement company and as the President of WellHome, we welcome you here, sir, 

and he is going to testify on behalf of HomeStar Coalition as the 

President of WellHome so we welcome you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY LASETER 

Mr. LASETER. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member 

Upton and the distinguished members of the subcommittee for the 

privilege to testify today and your dedication to energy efficiency. 

I would also like to thank Congressman Welch for his leadership 

on this issue. 

I am Larry Laseter, President of Masco Home Services, also 

known as WellHome. Our company is a home performance contractor and we are an operating company of Masco Corporation, a 

Michigan-based, Fortune 500 company and one of America’s largest 

manufacturers of products for the home. Masco is better known by 

our leading brands such as Behr Paint, Delta Faucets, Craft Maid 

Cabinets and many others and we are the Nation’s largest installer 

of insulation, but I am here today to speak on behalf of the 

HomeStar Coalition, a broad group of industry, labor, energy and 

environmental supporters, including more than 600 small businesses representing all 50 States. We state together in support of 

the HomeStar Program which would deliver a rare triple win for 

the American people in the form of jobs, savings for consumers and 

a positive impact on the environment. 

Let me begin with jobs. Make no mistake about it, the construction industry is in the midst of a one-industry depression. The unemployment rate in construction is 27 percent, nearly three times 

the overall jobless rate and this rate is higher than our Nation’s 

unemployment rate at the height of the Great Depression. At 

Masco Corporation, we have felt the pain of this industry downturn 

and we felt it firsthand having lost 27,000 jobs or over 40 percent 

of our workforce. However, construction workers have the knowhow and the experience for home energy retrofits and they are 

ready to get to work in jobs that cannot be outsourced overseas. 

These are workers like Michael Youngblood. Michael fell in love 

with construction when he started working for a family friend 

when he was only 15 years old. He built over 150 custom homes 

during a successful 18-year career but Michael found himself unemployed with a young family last year when the builder he was 

working for downsized from 25 project managers down to three. Michael joined our WellHome team in Michigan last summer, earned 

his Building Performance Institute certification and now helps 

homeowners achieve energy efficiency retrofit. HomeStar will create more jobs for construction workers like Michael, most of whom 

work for small businesses and it would drive increased demand for 

manufactured products and building materials that are almost universally made in the USA, supporting further job growth and economic impact and putting idle plants back online. 

For the American homeowner, the benefit comes in the form of 

annual energy savings of up to 45 percent. On average, these savVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:20 Nov 27, 2012 Jkt 076017 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A017.XXX A017

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
21 

ings are equivalent to a $500 stimulus check that a participating 

homeowner would receive every year for years to come. 

And, of course, energy efficiency improvements will support energy independence in the environment. Home energy represents 22 

percent of our carbon output, twice that of passenger cars and more 

than two-thirds of America’s over 100 million homes were built before modern building codes. There is clearly a need and HomeStar 

will fill that need by lowering the cost of these home improvements. Things like fixing drafty windows and leaking ducts, installing insulation and high efficiency heating and air conditioning systems, or undertaking whole home energy retrofits. Spurring consumer demand for these improvements will drive thousands of jobs 

for small contractors nationwide and in addition, the HomeStar Coalition remains committed to the inclusion of an incentive for customer-installed measures under the Silver Star Program. 

But we also know that many middle-class Americans are 

squeezed by the economy and the credit crisis and that is why the 

HomeStar Program legislation allocates $200 million for State programs to make energy efficiency loans more available and more affordable. In addition, HomeStar establishes industry performance 

standards, ensures that a portion of all jobs are inspected by 

credentialed professionals after the project is completed and offers 

added incentives to contractors that invest in a properly trained 

and certified workforce. This quality assurance system based on 

rigorous technical standards delivers on the promise of energy savings for American families. 

I would like to conclude by affirming that HomeStar is a winwin-win for jobs, for the American consumer and for the environment. It will put an estimated 168,000 skilled Americans back to 

work in the hardest hit part of our economy, the struggling construction and its related manufacturing sector. It will help more 

than three million American families retrofit their homes for energy efficiency, saving them as much as $9.4 billion in energy costs 

over 10 years, a return greater than the cost of the program itself 

and it will positively impact the environment and America’s energy 

independence. On behalf of the current and future workers represented by the 600 businesses that make up the HomeStar Coalition and the millions of households which will benefit in every community in America, I encourage you to move this bill forward without delay. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for your important 

leadership on behalf of the American people. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Laseter follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
22 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 29 here 76017A.007

Written Testimony from Larry Laseter, President of WellHome, 

on behalf of the HOME STAR Coalition 

Respectfully submitted to the 

Congress of the United States 

House of Representatives 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

March 18, 2010 
23 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 30 here 76017A.008

12 

Table of Contents 

I. Written Testimony 

a. Overview 3 

b. The Critical Need 4-7 

c. The Solution 8-10 

d. Measurable Outcomes 11-12 

e. Process & Administration 13 

f. Legislative Improvements 14 
24 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 31 here 76017A.009

OVERVIEW 

HOME STAR is an incentive program that will deliver a rare triple-win for the American people in the 

form of jobs, savings for consumers, and a positive impact on the environment. 

13 

HOME STAR will create jobs that can be filled immediately using a skilled and ready construction 

workforce - workers idled by the recession who are now most in need of help. It will drive increased 

demand for manufactured products and building materials, supporting further job growth and economic 

impact. HOME STAR will result in energy savings for homeowners and higher home values. And longterm efficiency gains will support energy independence and the environment as we reduce our carbon 

output. Importantly, the program can move quickly, with a minimum of red tape, and show immediate, 

measurable results that will create a platform for long-term development of a high-quality and rapidly 

growing home energy retrofit industry. 

HOME STAR puts Americans back to work now and will create jobs in existing industries by providing 

short-term incentives for energy efficiency improvements in residential buildings. The program is 

designed to jump-start construction and manufacturing jobs by offering rebates to consumers who invest 

in home energy improvements and energy-efficient products and services. Demand will rise for skilled 

construction labor and advanced building materials as homeowners make improvements to their homes. 

Manufacturing inventories will be restocked and assembly lines for advanced materials and U.S. 

technology will start rolling again. Investment and capital will begin to flow to millions of idled 

construction and manufacturing workers and create new demand to retrofit homes for energy 

performance - now and into the future. 

HOME STAR is a timely program that builds on existing policies and initiatives that have already 

demonstrated effectiveness. It has won widespread support from the HOME STAR Coalition, which is 

comprised of national retailers, building products manufacturers, labor advocates, environmental and 

energy efficiency groups, state agencies, contractors and more than 600 small businesses from every state. 

The Coalition views HOME STAR as a win-win-win. It will: 1) put an estimated 168,000 skilled 

Americans back to work in the hardest-hit part of our economy-the struggling construction and 

manufacturing sector; 2) help more than 3 million American families retrofit their homes for energy 

efficiency, saving them as much at $9.4 billion in energy costs over 10 years; and 3) positively impact the 

environment and create a healthier planet by removing the equivalent of 615,000 cars from the road. 

Now is the time for HOME STAR. 
25 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 32 here 76017A.010

14 

THE CRITICAL NEED 

Construction: A One-Industry Depression 

A program that incentivizes energy improvements would rapidly create jobs within the construction 

sector and in the manufacturing and retail industries that support it. These are areas of the economy that 

need help the most. 

While the overall economy has begun a slow climb out of recession, the current state of the American 

construction and building materials industry remains depressed. Overall unemployment fell to 9.7% in 

January and February of this year, but unemployment in the construction industry has continued to rise, 

reaching 27.1% in February-meaning one in four American construction workers is currently out of work. 

This is a higher rate of unemployment than our country felt during the Great Depression. 

USA Today - Feb. 25, 2010 

"While most of the job market 

rebounded in January, the 

construction industry remained 

mired in its worst downturn since 

the Great Depression. The sector 

has/ost about 2 million jobs since 

the recession started.» 

Construction-related unemployment is significantly higher in some states, with catastrophic results for 

local economies. Arizona, Nevada, Michigan and Florida, for example, have lost over 40% of their 

construction jobs since the peak of the housing market. 

As devastating as these numhers are, the unemployment figures for construction probably do not reflect 

the fuJI magnitude of the problem, due to the large number of self-employed construction workers that do 

not show up in payroll statistics. Economic Census data shows that the self-employed share of workers is 
26 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 33 here 76017A.011

27:1% U!l~l)1ployrrient' 

foraip~riah~d'workars in 

consfrui:tion 

Z.l,milliOll jobslosti 

ih'consttuction since 2006 

l&6,~jObS lost 

in toristruilion.ielatedretail 

suth as),uild,ng"'i1pply ,tbras, ' 

anil lumb." yardssi~ce 2006 

Only 50% ~~~tltyutilization 

, at plantsiln,construct!dndel~tad 

indust'i~~ 

7,oOO".Imp~ni~s 

m~k. arid Install \l!lndows;82% 

of whic~ are $m,,11 busitla~ses 

22,QIio i1n~ula'tidn Install~rs ' 

In the.utS.; SS,.'ofwhich ara 

srrlall1 busineise. 

:I nlilQQn1>"C1ple 

prodiiceandlnstall HVAC 

equipmenfciildim\ poised to 

respond tei the lIelid 

90% bf !ley remodeling and " 

retrofit prOducts are rriad" in 

Ameiica,such as replacein,ent 

windoW'srrur'hates~ insulat~on f 

and caulking' 

IS 

significant1y higher in the construction industry than in other sectors 

(16.6% in 2008), so the jobs picture is even more dire than the 

statistics suggest. 

Further, more than 90% of contractors in the construction industry are 

small businesses-another hard-hit segment of the economy. Building 

materials manufacturing is offby at least 40% from its capacity. The 

result is hundreds of factories that have closed or are running only 

part-time lines. This shocking drop in construction industry jobs and 

its reverberating impact on building products manufacturers, retailers, 

and specialty trades demands attention and an urgent policy response. 

It is hard to foresee a robust economic recovery in communities when 

these depression-level conditions persist within local construction job 

markets. 

By the end of last year, 42 of the 44 states with available data had seen 

job losses in excess of 10% of total construction jobs since the last peak 

in construction employment; 31 states had lost more than 20% of their 

construction jobs; 11 states had lost more than 30%; and four states 
27 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 34 here 76017A.012

had experienced a shocking decline in construction employment of more than 40%. 

Importantly, the vast majority of manufactured products and'raw materials used in residential energy 

efficiency retrofits are produced domestically, so the dollars spent on HOME STAR improvements 

circulate primarily through the U.S. economy. In many categories of building materials, the rate of 

domestic production is over 92%. 

16 

America has millions of skilled construction and manufacturing workers who are unemployed and need 

relatively little re-training to enter the retrofitting industry. HOME STAR is a targeted program that will 

create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, and impact thousands of local businesses in every community 

in America. 

Energy Efficiency 

Improving the energy efficiency and performance of existing homes could have a dramatic impact on the 

national consumption of energy. Two-thirds of the more than 100 million single-family homes in the 

United States were built before the adoption of modern energy codes.' These existing homes consume 

22% of the nation's energy overall-approximately twice the carbon emissions produced by passenger 

cars,2 This stock of older homes provides a prime market for energy efficiency upgrades. 

I U,S. Department of Energy 2 Pew Center on Global Climate Change 

Energy Consumption by Sector 

If homes bnilt before 2000 used as little energy per square foot (adjnsted by region) as those bnilt since 

2000, residential energy consumption would drop by 22.5%. While this calculation does not account for 

differences between older and newer homes related to layout, location, aud household behavior, it does 

illustrate the potential energy savings from retrofitting the existing housing stock. 
28 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 35 here 76017A.013

Common Sources of Energy Loss 

from Air Leakage 

Reducing air leaks could cut up to 10"k from an average 

household's monthly energy bill. 

US Dept. of Energy 

17 

Another important factor that reinforces the need to make our homes more efficient is the impact on 

affordability. The housing and mortgage crisis occurred at a time of skyrocketing energy prices that 

pushed many homeowners over the edge into default as they could not pay both their mortgages and high 

energy bills. HOME STAR can help to cushion working- and middle-class homeowners against future 

energy price surges. Further, energy savings translate directly into lower bills and therefore greater 

housing affordability, helping to keep hard-pressed families in the homes. 

The time for comprehensive home energy efficiency improvements is now, and HOME STAR offers 

Americans the opportunity to do their part in reducing energy consumption by improving the efficiency of 

their homes. HOME STAR offers significant and broad-based energy efficiency benefits. HOME STAR 

will help more than 3 million American families retrofit their homes for energy efficiency, saving them as 

much as $9-4 billion in energy costs over 10 years. This is the equivalent of removing 615,000 cars from 

the road or the energy generated from four 300-megawatt power plants. All supported technologies and 

improvement measures in HOME STAR are proven to provide the promised benefits. 

Building on Existing State and Federal Energy Retrofit Programs 

There are many opportnnities for homeowners to improve efficiency throughout their homes. The most 

successful campaigns have included the Home Performance with ENERGY STAR program managed by 

the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, and state or utility programs that 

have focused on replacing old equipment and retrofitting homes. The structure of the HOME STAR 

program pulls heavily from the Home Performance with ENERGY STAR program operating in 29 states. 

States as diverse as Oregon, New York, Tennessee, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Missouri, Arizona, and 

California have programs that demonstrate the effectiveness of the HOME STAR approach and can help 

jump-start nationwide participation. 
29 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 36 here 76017A.014

'> 1 18 

THE SOLUTION 

HOME STAR is the solution to the serious issues and challenges outlined above. HOME STAR is a fastacting, short-term job creation program that will drive private investment into the hard-hit construction 

and manufacturing sectors, while saving consumers money on their energy bills and reducing carbon 

emissions. It will build on current state programs and existing industry capacity for performing both 

retrofits and quality assurance, using federal standards and incentives as a cornman platform to lower 

program costs and increase consumer awareness. Strong consumer incentives to drive market demand, 

combined with meaningful standards and incentives for high-quality implementation of efficiency 

measures and verification of energy savings will ensure that the growing energy efficiency retrofit industry 

produces ongoing and measurable results while putting Americans back to work in long-term jobs. 

In light of the fact that two-thirds of the more than 100 million homes in America were built before 

modern energy codes, there is a pressing need for the energy efficiency improvements HOME STAR will 

make possible. HOME STAR will simplifY and lower the cost of horne improvements such as fixing drafty 

windows and leaking ducts, iustalling insulation and high-efficiency heating and air conditioning 

equipment, replacing inefficient hot water heaters, or undertaking whole-horne efficiency retrofits that 

can cut energy bills by 20% or more. 

HOME STAR provides two types of consumer incentives: 

The SILVER STARprescnptive path provides a near-term incentive for specific energysaving investments. The incentive is simple to administer and easily introduced into the existing 

marketplace. Homeowners receive between $1,000 and $1,500 for each measure installed in the 

horne, with a benefit not exceeding $3,000 or 50% of total project costs (whichever is less). 

Covered measures include air sealing; attic, wall, and crawl space insulation; duct sealing or 

replacement; and replacement of existing windows and doors, furnaces, air conditioners, heat 

pumps, and water heaters with high-efficiency models. The legislation will utilize existing 

standards for qualifying products at a level sufficient to significantly increase consumer demand 

for highly energy-efficient building materials and mechanical systems. SILVER STAR 

improvements may be implemented by any appropriately licensed and insured contractor, but all 

participating contractors will receive information about opportunities for accreditation and 

training programs. 

The GOLD STAR performance path offers an incentive to households that choose to conduct 

a comprehensive energy audit and then implement a variety of measures that are jointly 

engineered to provide greater total returns in energy savings. This performance path represents 

the future of horne efficiency: state-of-the-art building science is used to identifY problems, 
30 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 37 here 76017A.015

19 

present solutions, and deliver verifiable energy savings, generating confidence among 

homeowners and investors alike. This technology-neutral approach is based on performance, not 

specific products, so market forces will direct funds to solutions that achieve the best results. A 

certified professional with accreditation from the Building Performance Institute (BPI), the 

Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET) or an approved equivalent conducts an energy 

audit before work begins, and a test-out when the performance retrofit is complete. Consumers 

receive $3,000 for modeled savings of 20%, plus an additional $1,000 incentive for each 

additiona15% of modeled energy savings, with incentives not to exceed 50% of project costs or 

$8,000 (whichever is less). Contractors implementiug the GOLD STAR performance path must 

be BPI accredited. 

HOME STAR will require skilled, trained workers to complete the improvements cited above. With the 

depression of the construction market, there is a large workforce across the nation ready and eager to get 

back to work. HOME STAR will also create manufacturing jobs for the dramatically increased levels of 

insulation, windows, HVAC equipment, caulk, tools and other products needed for retrofitting America's 

housing stock. More than 92% of these products are produced in the United States by American workers. 

In addition, the retail distribution of products through home improvement stores and lumber yards will 

play an important role in increasing jobs in this sector. Retailers also will facilitate consumer education 

and access to energy improvement products. More than 90% of the jobs created through home retrofits 

are in small businesses, a powerful engine of economic growth and job creation. 

Financing of Consnmer Investments 

Many middle-class Americans are squeezed by a lack of access to capital, which would prevent them from 

paying the homeowner share of investment in efficiency improvements. The HOME STAR legislation 

addresses this challenge by allocating $200 million for state programs that facilitate home retrofit 

financing. This would be accomplished through a range of existing and new financing approaches that 

include specialized local and national bank programs, property tax and utility bill financing, as well as 

national specialty lenders through federal agencies such as Fannie Mae. In this way, working families will 

be able to participate in the HOME STAR program. In addition, financing measures will increase the 

number of jobs created through HOME STAR by bringing new private capital investments into building 

retrofits, expanding the leverage of federal investments, and increasing the level of energy and dollar 

savings per home. This allocation of financing subsidies will create up to $1.5 billion in low-interest 

consumer financing and support a wide variety of existing financial products, including (but not limited 

to): 

Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Loans 

Fannie Mae loans 
31 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 38 here 76017A.016

Non-collateral loans 

Secured loan products 

On-bill financing 

110 

In most instances, energy efficiency savings will exceed the monthly loan payments and allow American 

families to achieve cash-flow-positive results on HOME STAR projects from day one. 

Quality Assurance 

HOME STAR establishes a robust quality assurance system based on rigorous technical standards to 

protect against waste, fraud, and abuse. This system establishes industry performance standards, ensures 

that a portion of all jobs are inspected by credentialed professionals after project completion, and offers 

an additional incentive to contractors that invest in a properly trained and certified workforce. 

Contractors can enroll in the program by registering and presenting proof of licensing and insurance to a 

quality assurance provider. These quality assurance providers are already certified through the Building 

Performance Institute (BPI), the Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET) and other 

nongovernmental organizations. Homeowners may be contacted by a quality assurance provider for a 

field inspection after a job is completed to verify that work was done according to standards and as 

contracted. The program will guarantee minimum inspection rates sufficient to assure quality work and 

provide accountability for contractors. 

Quality assurance programs managed at the state level will maintain lists of qualified inspectors, facilitate 

access to training and certification programs (including outreach to low-income workers and minority 

contractors), coordinate with existing state and local efficiency programs, and develop systems for 

monitoring and enforcement. To provide for the long-term sustainability of this new and growing market, 

states will work with the Department of Energy to bring their quality assurance oversight up to a common 

national standard. 

For GOLD STAR projects, contractors must submit ajob completion checklist and work scope for each 

project, along with testing data, before the incentive is disbursed. SILVER STAR contractors are only 

required to submit a job completion checklist. For both the GOLD STAR and SILVER STAR programs, 

field quality assurance is conducted within 30 days on a sample of jobs to verify quality installation. 

Incentives will be paid to the contractors quickly so that their businesses will have adequate cash flow to 

operate efficiently and hire new workers. 

Quality assurance requirements in HOME STAR "ill involve a simple paperwork review in approving 

individual rebates, with a minimum baseline protocol for field inspection that is sufficiently rigorous to 

ensure high-quality installation and appropriate consumer protection. In all cases, reduced inspection 

rates will apply for contractors employing a trained and certified workforce. 
32 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 39 here 76017A.017

111 

MEASURABLE OUTCOMES 

One of the unique advantages of the HOME STARprogram is that it will lead to measurable outcomes and 

the opportunity to quantify the benefits to job creation, consumer savings, energy efficiency, and 

environmental gains. HOME STAR will also help create a marketplace that is based on sound economics 

and that can stand on its own in the future without the need for permanent subsidies. 

Jobs 

HOME STAR is expected to create 168,000 construction, manufacturing, and retail jobs in local 

communities in every state. 

These jobs will be quality, living-wage positions that cannot be outsourced overseas. Construction and 

manufacturing companies are poised to ramp up quickly to meet the increased level of demand for 

insulation, windows, HVAC equipment, caulking, tools, and other products needed for retrofitting 

America's housing stock. 

This work is by its very nature local and requires skilled construction workers who are ready and available 

to fill the need. The HOME STAR legislation will create incentives for investing in a skilled and certified 

workforce that can build a long-term industry and provide good wages for skilled workers. Furthermore, 

most of the manufactured goods used to retrofit homes are produced domestically, with more than 92% of 

all the products incorporated into HOME STAR made in America. 

The multiplier effect on jobs-from certified home performance advisors to installers, retailers, 

manufacturers, quality assurance contractors -coupled with its reach to literally every state and every 

community in America, makes the HOME STAR program a unique opportunity to put hundreds of 

thousands of people back to work. 

Home Energy Efficiency 

The HOME STAR program will help more than 3 million American families retrofit their homes for 

energy efficiency and save them as much as $9,4 billion over 10 years, while reducing their energy usage 

by 10-30%. This is the equivalent of an annual $500 stimulus per household that the homeowner will 

receive for years to come. Better use of energy in our homes could raise property resale values in a 

recovering real estate market, and offers an opportunity to confront climate change as it continues to 

threaten our environment and our national security. 

In addition, smart investments in energy efficiency made today will pay for themselves through long-term 

energy bill savings. In fact, home performance improvements implemented according to the standards 
33 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 40 here 76017A.018

112 

set by the Building Performance Institute (BPI), a key part of the HOME STAR program, have already 

resulted in a less than three- to four-year payback on a homeowner's investment in thousands of homes. 

Infrastructure 

HOME STAR will help to establish a national platform, with national standards, for an industry that has 

been in the making for nearly 30 years. Over the past three decades, industry pioneers have built the 

foundation for the home performance industry. National standards and credentialing are in place through 

the Building Performance Institute (BPI), Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET), and other 

organizations. The EPA and DOE have increased public awareness and established rules for executing 

Home Performance with ENERGY STAR programs across the country. Private-sector individuals and 

companies, working with early champions such as the New York State Energy Research and Development 

Authority (NYSERDA), have produced energy modeling software, productivity and project management 

software, and powerful training programs for the army of installers that will be needed to meet future 

demand. In New York, more than 30,000 GOLD STAR-level retrofits have resulted in average annual 

energy savings of over 25% per household. They have also recorded and modeled the anticipated energy 

savings from retrofits and remodeling, proving that energy efficiency improvements are effective and have 

a tangible return on investment. 

Environment 

Basic efficiency improvements can reduce energy waste and greenhouse gas emissions in most American 

homes, often by 10-30%. This is particularly true in the nearly 80 million homes built before modern 

energy codes. 

In total, household energy use accounts for more than one-fifth of U.S. carbon emissions-roughly twice 

the emissions produced by passenger cars. Spurred by HOME STAR rebates, home retrofits are projected 

to increase to 3 million a year from the current level of 200,000 a year, which could result in carbon 

output reduction equal to taking 615,000 cars off the road or the energy generated by four 300-megawatt 

power plants. 

Energy Independence 

By further scaling back America's dependence on fossil fuels, we reduce our vulnerability to an energy 

marketplace with extreme price swings caused by those outside of our country, who may be hostile to our 

interests. Reducing this dependence will not only improve our national security, but also the economic 

security of American families. 
34 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 41 here 76017A.019

113 

PROCESS & ADMINISTRATION 

The fundamental success of HOME STAR relies on rapid deployment and ease of execution both for the 

consumers it intends to serve, as well as for the service providers and government administrators involved 

in delivery and oversight. The HOME STAR Coalition has brought together a diverse group to work 

through the many details required for rapid deployment to ensure this legislation can work quickly. 

Administrative Process 

The HOME STAR program must meet several overarching goals. To be successful, HOME STAR must 

rapidly put construction workers back to work and create good, living-wage jobs for American workers; 

generate a minimum of new government bureaucracy; provide clear lines of authority; and offer a 

transparent process for all participants. 

HOME STAR is not dependent on whether authority rests with a particular federal agency; rather, 

authority could reside within a number of federal agencies without compromising the program goals. The 

federal government must, however, provide uniform gnidance to establish consistent baseline resources 

and procedures for all states. States will take the lead in overseeing quality assurance programs, 

implementing financing plans, and coordinating with existing programs to avoid duplication. The 

ultimate implementation of this program will be driven by market transactions, and as such the program 

will set aside administrative funds to drive consumer awareness. 

HOME STAR will provide rebates to consumers, which will be assigned to the contractors who complete 

the work, thus providing an instant price reduction at the point of sale. Rebate checks will be issued by 

the federal government through rebate aggregators that assist contractors in processing payments and 

data to ensure smooth and timely payments. Existing state and utility programs will participate in this 

role along with large retailers or national organizations. In any case, administrative procedures are 

designed for speed and efficiency to roll the program out rapidly and effectively and to avoid payment 

delays. 
35 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 42 here 76017A.020

114 

LEGISLATIVE IMPROVEMENTS 

While the current draft bill is excellent, we believe that there are two important changes that could be 

made to enhance the legislation. First is the addition of a targeted incentive for customer-installed 

measures with educational materials for insulation. This helps to drive consumer awareness and 

consumer activity at the retail level that will translate into installed measures and program awareness. 

The second is the integration of the HOME STAR incentives with the existing 2SC tax credits. Some 

incentives are currently available through tax credits, but many Americans cannot take advantage of these 

credits nor address the delays and uncertainties of their impact. These credits help but do not solve the 

goals ofthe HOME STAR program. It is paramount that consumers not be faced with uncertainty and 

confusion regarding energy efficiency tax credits and HOME STAR incentives. To avoid homeowner 

confusion, we recommend that the customer be able to take a 2SC tax credit on the net amount of the 

work after incentives but staying within the overallso% cap. This would simplify and ensure easy 

coordination and application of both credits. The HOME STAR incentives have been calculated based on 

the use of this approach. 

With these small improvements, we believe that the HOME STAR legislation will put Americans back to 

work in aliso states and begin to address the depression in the construction and housing industries. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the HOME STAR Coalition. 
36 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Larry Laseter, very much. 

Our next witness is Governor John Engler. He is the President 

and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers. He is the 

former Governor of Michigan and previously served for 20 years in 

the State legislature. The National Association of Manufacturers is 

the largest industry trade group in America representing small and 

large manufacturers in every industrial sector in all 50 States. We 

welcome you, Governor Engler. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN ENGLER 

Mr. ENGLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much for the opportunity to be with you today, ranking member and good friend, 

Fred Upton, distinguished subcommittee members, thank you for 

holding this hearing on the HomeStar proposal and offering me the 

opportunity to testify before you today. I thought maybe it could 

just be deemed that I had testified but then I thought I had better 

show up here in person and so here I am. 

The NAM members are very excited, very committed to working 

with the Administration. 

Mr. MARKEY. If you make the motion, we will pass the bill right 

now. 

Mr. ENGLER. The thought of being here though just to tell you 

that we want to work with you and the Administration and Congress to make the HomeStar proposal as effective as possible as 

soon as possible, and I am pleased to offer our support for this important program. 

Our manufacturers firmly believe that an effective program to 

encourage energy efficient home retrofits will stimulate job creation 

by increasing the demand for energy efficient products and services 

and will lead us down a path to more energy efficient economy, the 

bottom line, straightforward, more jobs, fewer emissions, less energy. The U.S. manufacturing sector was hit hard during the recession. Manufacturing employment has fallen by nearly 2.2 million 

since December of 2007, to a level just over 11 and a half million. 

The deep decline in the housing market which includes the home 

improvement sector has had a significant impact on manufacturing. Nearly a quarter of the manufacturing jobs have been lost 

in industries closely connected to housing such as furniture, wood 

and textile products, building materials. This sector continues to 

struggle. You have heard that today already and you will continue 

to hear that. Consequently, a sustainable upturn in the housing 

sector will be a key ingredient for getting manufacturing back on 

track, expanding production and creating high-paying jobs. In fact, 

the NAM estimates if, and that may be a big if, a healthy rebound 

in housing takes place over the next few years, it likely will create 

an additional 128,000 manufacturing jobs in industries connected 

to this sector. 

The HomeStar Program that we are here today to talk about 

would spur much needed consumer demand for energy efficient 

products and building materials by providing significant and immediate rebates for home energy efficiency retrofits. In addition to 

promoting residential energy efficiency, HomeStar will quickly create jobs in the manufacturing, distribution and sale of energy efficient products. One key reason that has been mentioned and some 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
37 

of the members have touched on this, the HomeStar Program it 

will work I think as the consumers can act pretty much as soon 

as Congress acts. It is not necessary this program to wait for a 

Federal agency to act first and there is I think further evidence 

that a temporary, targeted incentive program like HomeStar can 

work the Clean Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit Program that 

was in the Stimulus Bill of last year has drawn tremendous interest from the private sector. Section 48C provided 30 percent tax 

credit for investments in facilities that manufacture clean energy 

technologies and that includes the wind, solar, batteries, advanced 

transportation, advanced energy transmission. The initial tax credit under 48C was capped at $2.3 billion. It has the potential to generate some 58,000 jobs. It is already over subscribed and so we also 

are happy to support the Administration’s initiative that Vice 

President Biden is announcing today that is going to provide additional $5 billion to expand that current program. 

We recognize the need to promote energy efficiency across the 

U.S. economy. Manufacturing accounts for one-third of our Nation’s 

energy use. Cost effective energy efficiency and conservation measures are the key to reducing overall energy cost inputs and it is a 

way to stretch available energy supplies, at the same time reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions. The manufacturing sector itself has 

taken the lead in reducing energy usage and increasing energy efficiency making it a priority. The improvements in energy efficiency 

in the manufacturing sector have helped the country actually 48 

percent more efficient in energy use per unit of GDP and they have 

reduced the energy intensity of the U.S. economy by nearly two 

percent. Similar efforts by homeowners would make a substantial 

contribution to U.S. energy security because they also are responsible for about one-third of energy consumption as the Secretary 

mentions in her testimony. 

Manufacturers are committed to producing the necessary energy 

efficient consumer products such as insulation, windows, doors, 

skylight, heating and cooling systems and likewise, we are pleased 

to see in this morning’s draft that was made available, the inclusion of other products that are also designed to promote residential 

energy efficiency. With more than half of the 86 million single-family homes throughout the United States built before modern codes 

even existed, the vast majority of the homes in the United States 

are not well-insulated, have outdated heating and cooling systems, 

inefficient windows and doors. They are great candidates for energy 

efficiency upgrades. Just think this, if consumers install more energy efficient products, they could save up to 30 percent on their 

energy bills and the MacKenzie Study which many of us are quite 

familiar with, show the United States can save more than $600 billion in energy costs by 2020 if we spent more on making our homes 

and our buildings more energy efficient. 

Mr. Chairman, as you and your subcommittee fully understand, 

the country faces significant challenges in terms of job creation and 

energy use. Our manufacturers believe the HomeStar Program provides a unique opportunity to the public and private sectors to 

work together to address two major policy objectives, creating jobs 

and lowering unemployment while making American homes more 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
38 

energy efficient. We look forward to working with you expeditiously 

to make HomeStar a reality. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Engler follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
39 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 46 here 76017A.021

Written Testimony 

of The Honorable John Engler, President and CEO 

The National Association of Manufacturers 

Submitted to the Subcommittee of Energy and Environment 

of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

House of Representatives 

Hearing on "HomeStar: Job Creation Through Home Energy Retrofits" 

Hearing Date March 18,2010 

Leading Innovation. Creating Opportunity. Pursuing Progress. 

1331 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20004 P 2020637·3077 F 202-637-3182 WW'N.nam.org 
40 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 47 here 76017A.022

Written Testimony Submitted by 

The Honorable John Engler 

President & CEO 

National Association of Manufacturers 

Washington, D.C. 

Submitted to the 

House Committee of Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

Hearing on 

"HomeStar: Job Creation Through Home Energy Retrofits" 

Wednesday, March 18, 2010 

Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Upton and Members of the Subcommittee, 

I am John Engler, President of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). 

I want to thank you for holding this hearing on the HomeStar proposal and for offering 

me the opportunity to testify before you today. The NAM and its member companies 

are committed to working with the Administration and Congress to make the HomeStar 

proposal as effective as possible and I am pleased to offer our support for this important 

program. 

NAM is the nation's largest industrial trade association, representing smail and 

large manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 states. Our members playa 

critical role in the manufacturing, distribution and sale of energy-efficient products and 

services that can improve the efficiency of our homes and our buildings. 

NAM firmly believes that an effective program to encourage energy-efficient 

home retrofits will both stimulate job creation by increasing the demand for energy 

efficient products and services and lead us down a path to a more energy-efficient 

economy. 
41 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 48 here 76017A.023

Getting People Back to Work 

The U.S. manufacturing sector was hit hard during the recent recession. 

Manufacturing employment has fallen by nearly 2.2 million since December 2007 to a 

level of just over 11.5 million. This decline has affected manufacturers more than any 

other sector of the economy and has accounted for roughly a quarter (26 percent) of the 

8.4 million jobs lost to-date. While manufacturing production started to turn up in the 

second half of last year, the level of production currently remains 12 percent below prerecessionary levels as of last month. 

The deep decline in the housing market-which includes the home improvement 

sector-has had a significant impact on manufacturing. Nearly a quarter of the 

manufacturing jobs lost have been in industries closely connected to housing, such as 

furniture, wood and textile products and building materials. While output in several of 

these industries (textiles and wood products) has turned up in recent months, others 

(building materials and furniture) still have not. 

Along with recoveries in other parts of the domestic economy as well as the 

global economy, a sustainable upturn in the housing sector will be a key ingredient for 

getting manufacturing back on track, expanding production and creating high-paying 

jobs. In fact, NAM estimates that if a healthy rebound in housing takes place over the 

next few years (2010-2013), it likely will create 128,000 manufacturing jobs in the 

industries connected to this sector. 

As currently drafted, the HomeStar proposal would spur consumer demand for 

the purchase and installation of energy-efficient products and building materials by 

providing significant and immediate rebates for home energy-efficiency retrofits. In 

addition to promoting residential energy efficiency, the program will quickly create jobs 

in the manufacturing, distribution and sale of energy-efficient products. 

Moreover, there is strong evidence that temporary, targeted incentive programs 

like HomeStar can generate jobs, investment and economic growth. For example, the 

clean energy manufacturing tax credit program included in the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act enacted last year has drawn tremendous interest from the private 

sector. Section 48C provides a 30 percent tax credit for investments in facilities that 

manufacture clean energy technologies including wind, solar, batteries, advanced 

transportation and advanced energy transmission. The initial tax credit program, which 

was capped at $2.3 billion, will spur critical investment in new manufacturing facilities 

and has the potential to generate some 58,000 jobs. The program already is 

oversubscribed-it has drawn applications for more than $8 billion in tax credits. The 

NAM supports efforts to provide an additional $5 billion to expand the current program. 
42 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 49 here 76017A.024

Promoting Energy Efficiency 

NAM members recognize the need to promote energy efficiency across the U.S. 

economy. Manufacturers account for a third of our nation's energy use and the NAM 

believes that cost-effective energy efficiency and conservation measures are key to 

reducing energy cost inputs, stretching available energy supplies and reducing green 

house gas emissions. The manufacturing sector has taken the lead in making energy 

efficiency a priority. In fact, improvements in energy efficiency in the manufacturing 

sector have helped the country to become 46 percent more efficient in energy use per 

unit of GOP, and reduced energy intensity of the U.S. economy by 1.9 percent. 

Manufacturers are committed to producing more energy-efficient consumer 

products including insulation, windows, doors, skylights, and heating and cooling 

systems that reduce the U.S. demand for energy as well as reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions. With more than half of the 86 million single family homes throughout the 

United States constructed before modern codes even existed, the vast majority of 

homes in the United States are not well insulated, have outdated heating and cooling 

systems, have inefficient windows and doors and are in dire need of upgrades. i 

In addition, utility bills are the second highest cost of horne ownership today 

bested only by the mortgage itself. According to the Department of Energy, a typical 

household spends $2,200 annually on energy bills. ii With home heating costs on the 

increase and utility bills on the rise, the need for action is now. 

If consumers installed more energy-efficient products, they could save up to 30 

percent on their energy bills. iii Moreover, we would immediately begin to reduce the 

demand for energy in this nation. In fact, one study showed that the United States 

could save more than $600 billion in energy costs by 2020 if we spend more on making 

our homes and our buildings more energy-efficient. iv 

Mr. Chairman, while the benefits of energy-efficiency retrofits are clear both to 

consumers and our country, it is also clear that consumers are not always choosing to 

make their homes more energy efficient. According to a recent report of the Harvard's 

Joint Center on Housing Studies, only 14 percent of remodeling projects are geared 

toward energy-efficiency. With this in mind, we believe a program to motivate 

consumers is needed. HomeStar, if done right, can help us provide the motivation, 

build demand and thus get people back to work in the manufacturing, distribution, sale 

and installation of energy-efficient products. 

Making HomeStar Work 

The immediate impact of the HomeStar program will be in the Silver Star 

category, which provides targeted incentives for consumer-installed energy-efficient 

products and has the potential to have the most immediate and most significant impact 

on jobs. The key to making this program work is to make sure that it is reliable, easy to 
43 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 50 here 76017A.025

understand and quickly deployed. We also would like to see the program expanded to 

include other products designed to promote residential energy-efficiency. 

As you work to advance the proposal, we look forward to working with you to 

make sure that the program itself and the product specifications are easily 

understandable for businesses and for consumers. We also look forward to working 

with you to make sure that the rebate program is administered in such a way as to 

ensure that the rebates are processed quickly and in a reliable fashion. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, the country faces significant challenges in terms of job creation 

and energy use. NAM believes that the HomeStar program provides a unique 

opportunity for the public and private sectors to work together to address two major 

policy objectives: stimulating job creation and making American homes more energyefficient. America's manufacturers look forward to working with you as the HomeStar 

legislation moves forward and we are pleased to provide our support for making this an 

effective program. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman 

i Joint Center for House Studies of HaNard University "The remodeling market in transition" 

http://www.jchs.haNard.edu/publications/remodeling/remodeling2007/r07 -1.pdf 

iihttp://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find a producl.showProductGroup&pgw code=TH 

iii Alliance to Save Energy http://ase.org/contentlnews/detaiI/6360 

iv htlp:/lwww.energysecuritvanddiversitv.com/11966/55798938/energy-efficiency-could-save-us-600-

billion 
44 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Governor, very much. Our honor to 

have you here with us, thank you. 

Our next witness, Mr. Michael Thaman, he is the President and 

CEO and Chairman of the Board of Owens Corning. Owens Corning is a global producer of residential and commercial building 

materials and fiberglass insulation. We welcome you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL THAMAN 

Mr. THAMAN. Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Upton and 

members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

I also thank Chairman Markey and the committee for your leadership in recognizing the importance of energy efficiency as it relates 

to national energy policy. Additionally, I would like to personally 

thank and recognize Congressman Welch for your hard work on the 

progress we have made. 

My name is Mike Thaman. I am Chairman and CEO of Owens 

Corning, a global company based in Toledo, Ohio. I am proud of 

Owens Corning and our energy efficiency focus. Our company was 

founded in 1938, when we first commercialize glass fibers that led 

to the creation of fiberglass insulation. We produce more energysaving insulation than anyone else in North America. We operate 

55 manufacturing facilities in the U.S., including insulation plants 

in Ohio, California, Texas, Georgia, New York, Kansas, Utah, Oregon, Arizona and Illinois. 

In the midst of the downturn in the U.S. economy and the housing industry, we have experienced significant job loss at Owens 

Corning. The businesses in our building materials group in the 

U.S. today employ 25 percent fewer people than at their peak of 

the U.S. housing cycle in 2006. In 2009, our insulation plants operated at only 50 percent of capacity, compared with full utilization 

in 2006. 

Contractors who buy and install our insulation are also struggling. Data from the Insulation Contractor Association of America 

indicates that the unemployment rate in the installer community 

is about 30 percent, three times higher than the current national 

unemployment rate. 

I join you today in support of HomeStar and your effort to create 

jobs in America. HomeStar as currently proposed will create demand for the residential insulation products that my company 

manufactures and sells. HomeStar will create jobs at Owens Corning. As important, it will create work for insulation contractors 

across the country as well as the suppliers and distributors that 

make up the sales and supply chain supporting America’s insulation industry. 

As you know, HomeStar is designed to provide financial incentives for energy efficiency investments in residential buildings. It 

has two primary components, Gold Star which provides incentives 

for comprehensive energy audits and Silver Star which provides 

immediate near-term incentives to drive specific energy-saving investments like insulation, windows, doors, HVAC systems and 

water heaters. We strongly support both components of the program. We do believe that Silver Star is more likely to have the 

most immediate impact on jobs. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
45 

We have carefully studied HomeStar. It will create jobs at Owens 

Corning and at many other businesses that employ workers across 

the housing sector. HomeStar will also reduce energy use and home 

energy utility bills. That is important. According to the EPA, the 

average U.S. household spends more than $2,200 a year on energy 

bills with nearly half going to pay heating and cooling costs. Buildings in the country are the largest energy consumers. Buildings 

consume 40 percent of our Nation’s energy and over 70 percent of 

America’s electricity. Our homes are with us for generations. Many 

of our Nation’s homes were built before there were appropriate energy codes or any energy codes at all. 

The fundamental rationale for investing in energy efficiency 

home retrofits is compelling and the outcomes are measurable and 

meaningful. Today, more than 80 million American homes are 

under-insulated. As a leading producer of insulation products, our 

best estimates tell us that each year 99 percent of U.S. homeowners will not re-insulate their homes without financial incentives. At the same time, our experience has shown us that financial 

incentives will drive people to invest in energy efficiency products 

when those incentives are meaningful and when the process to access them is simple and direct. 

Insulation reduces energy cost to a homeowner. A study published in 2007, by the global consultancy, MacKenzie, which Governor Engler referenced, reports that insulation is the most cost-effective way to reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions in 

the U.S. In the midst of the current economic downturn and with 

the national unemployment rate surpassing nine percent, putting 

Americans back to work to make energy saving investments is a 

good idea. HomeStar gives all Americans an opportunity to act and 

an opportunity to make a difference in creating jobs and saving energy. HomeStar’s direct approach will drive demand and create 

sustainable U.S. jobs. By including rebates for insulation purchased on an installed basis or at retail, all American homeowners 

can participate in this program. This is good policy because there 

are certain consumers who prefer to do the jobs themselves. They 

should not be left out of the program. 

When we drive demand for insulation, we create U.S. jobs. The 

U.S. insulation industry is uniquely U.S. job-centric. Virtually, all 

of the insulation-related jobs, raw materials, manufacturing, delivery, sale and installation occur within several hundred miles of the 

U.S. home where the insulation will be installed. HomeStar can be 

a job creation bridge for thousands of unemployed insulation manufacturers and contractors who are awaiting the return of the U.S. 

housing market. Today, leading economists forecast that the housing market will not see a pronounced recovery until 2011 or 2012. 

Without HomeStar, the outlook for unemployment in our industry 

is not expected to improve any time soon. HomeStar is a great opportunity to create jobs, save energy, become more energy secure 

and reduce energy bills. Putting people back to work is sound economic policy. Making existing homes more energy efficient is sound 

energy policy. 

I urge you to take the necessary steps to ensure that HomeStar 

becomes law. I look forward to answering any questions that you 

might have. Thank you. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
46 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thaman follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
47 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 54 here 76017A.026

Written Testimony Submitted by 

Michael H. Thaman 

Chairman and CEO 

Owens Corning 

Submitted to the House Committee of Energy & Commerce 

SubcommUtee on Energy & Environment 

Hearing on 

"Home Star: Job Creation Through Home Energy Retrofits 

Thursday, March 18,2010 

Chairman Markey, Ranking member Upton, and members of the Committee: Thank you for this opportunity to 

testify today before your Sub-Committee regarding what is commonly referred to as the Home Star Program. I 

also thank the Committee for holding this hearing and demonstrating your leadership in recognizing the 

importance of energy efficiency as it relates to national energy policy. 

My name is Mike Thaman. I am Chairman and CEO of Owens Corning. a global company based in Toledo, 

Ohio. I am proud of Owens Corning and our energy-efficiency focus. Our Company was founded in 1938 when 

we first commercialized glass fibers that led to the creation of fiberglass insulation. We produce more energysaving insulation than anyone else in North America. 

We operate 55 manufacturing faciltties in the U.S., including insulation plants in Ohio, Califomia, Texas, 

Georgia, New York, Kansas, Utah, Oregon, Arizona and Illinois. 

In the midst of the downturn in the U.S. economy and the housing industry, we have experienced significant job 

loss at Owens Coming. 

The businesses in our Building Materials Group in the U.S. today employ 25% fewer people than at the peak of 

the U.S. housing cycle in 2006. In 2009, our Insulation plants operated at only 50% of capacity, compared with 

full utilization in 2006. 

Contractors who buy and install our insulation are struggling, as well. Data from the Insulation Contractors 

Association of America indicates that the unemployment rate in the instaffer community is about 30% -- three 

times higher than the current national unemployment rate. 

I join you today in support of Home Star and your effort to create jobs in America. Home Star, as currentfy 

proposed, will create demand for the residential insulation products that my company manufactures and sells. 

Home Starwiff create jobs at Owens Corning. As important, it will create work for insulation contractors across 

the country, as well as the suppliers and distributors that make up the sales and supply chain supporting 

America's insulation industry. 

As you know, Home Star is designed to provide financial incentives for energy efficient investment in residential 

buifdings. 

It has two primary components: Gold Star, which provides incentives for comprehensive energy audits and 

performance-based energy solutions; and, Silver Star which provides immediate, ne'ar -term incentives to drive 

specific energy-saving investments like insulation, windows, doors, HVAC systems and water healers. 

While we support both components of the program, we believe that Silver Star is more likely to have the most 

immediate impact on jobs. Gold Star will draw attention to the value of energy efficiency in the major ratrofrt of 

existing U.S. homes. 
48 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 55 here 76017A.027

Edward J. Markey -2- March 18, 2010 

We have carefully studied Home Star. It will create jobs at Owens Corning and at many other businesses that 

employ workers across the housing sector. Home Star will also reduce energy use and homeowners' utility bills. 

Thafs important. 

According to the EPA, the average U.S. household spends more than $2,200 a year on energy bills, with nearly 

half going to pay heating and cooling costs. 

Buildings in this country are the largest energy consumers. Buildings consume 40% of our nation's energy and 

over 70% of America's electricity. Buildings are also responsible for 40% of green house gas emissions in the 

U.S. Our homes are wtth us for generations. Many of our nation's homes were built before there were 

appropriate energy codes, or any energy codes at all. 

The fundamental rationale for investing in energy efficiency home retrofits is compelling, and the outcomes are 

measurable and meaningful. 

Today, more than 80 million of America's nearly 130 million homes are under-insulated. As a leading producer 

of insulation products, our best estimate tells us that each year 99% of U.S. homeowners will not reinsulate their 

homes without financial incentives. At the same lime, our experience has shown us that financial incentives will 

drive people to invest in energy efficiency products when those incentives are meaningful and when the process 

to access them is simple and direct. 

Insulation reduces energy costs to a homeowner. A study published in 2007 by the global consultancy 

McKinsey & Company reports that insulation is the most cost-effective way to reduce energy consumption and 

carbon emissions in the U.S. 

In the midst of the current economic downturn, and with the national unemployment rate surpassing 9%, putting 

Americans back to work to make energy-saving investments is a sound idea. Home Star gives all Americans an 

opportunity to act and an opportunity to make a difference in creating jobs and saving energy. 

Home Star's direct approach will drive demand and create sustainable U.S. jobs. By including rebates for 

insulation purchased on an installed basis or at retail, all American home owners can participate in the program. 

~y because there are cedain consllmers whcLj:lreieLtru:!o.lhajohlbernsetVelLIbese..peopIa 

should not be left out of the program. 

When we drive demand for insulation, we will create U.S. jobs. 

The insulation industry is uniquely U.S. job centric. Virtually all of the insulation-related jobs - from raw 

materials, to delivery, sale and installation - occur within several hundred miles of a manufacturing plant. 

Home Star can be a job-creation bridge for thousands of unemployed insulation makers and installers who are 

awaiting the return of the U.S. housing market. 

Today, leading economists report that the housing market will not see pronounced recovery until 2011, perhaps 

2012. Without Home Star, the outlook for unemployment in our industry is not expected to improve any time 

soon. 

Home Star is a great opportunity to create jobs, save energy, become more energy secure and to reduce 

energy bills. 

Putting people back to work is sound economic policy. Making existing homes more energy efficient is sound 

energy policy. 

I urge you to take the necessary steps to ensure that Home Star becomes law. I look forward to answering any 

questions you have. 
49 

Mr. MARKEY. All right, thank you, sir. 

Our next witness is Mr. Christopher Pratt and he is the Vice 

President of Construction Development Services in Troy, Michigan. 

He is here on behalf of the National Association of Homebuilders. 

Mr. Pratt has authored portions of training curriculum for the national homebuilders, Homebuilders Institute on Weatherization in 

Residential Housing so we welcome you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER A.S. PRATT 

Mr. PRATT. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Upton and members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Christopher Pratt. I am a construction design and 

energy specialist from Troy, Michigan with over 25 years of experience, as well as a weatherization instructor for a number of State 

programs. I am pleased to testify on behalf of the National Association of Homebuilders about the HomeStar proposal. 

Mr. MARKEY. How old were you when you began getting your experience, 25 years ago? 

Mr. PRATT. I tell people I grew up an SOB, a son of a builder 

so I grew up doing hard work. 

Mr. MARKEY. So like when you were five? 

Mr. PRATT. Fifteen. 

Mr. MARKEY. Fifteen, OK, good. 

Mr. PRATT. I am old. I don’t look it. 

NAHB supports incentives for retrofitting older homes and believes this is the best way to achieve meaningful energy savings in 

the residential sector. We see the potential in a program like 

HomeStar to deliver energy savings and create jobs if it is crafted 

in a manner that will promote long term workforce development 

and craft trades for contractors doing weatherization work. NAHB 

has already successfully demonstrated its ability to manage federally funded retrofit programs like Project Reenergize in Minnesota. 

Late last year, the builder association there administered this rebate program with Stimulus funds and in a few short months over 

1,400 homes were retrofitted, 800 contractors were employed and 

nearly $3 million were returned to customers in rebates for energy 

efficiency upgrades. 

NAHB hopes to ensure that the HomeStar Program is equally accessible by all qualified, highly-trained contractors that have undertaken legitimate workforce training and possess appropriate job 

skills in weatherization. We are concerned with the limitations on 

the certified workforce definition in the current draft legislation. 

Specifically, NAHB requests the inclusion of the Homebuilders Institute or HBI as a qualified workforce development program. HBI 

is the largest jobs corps partner with the U.S. Department of Labor 

and has developed a robust weatherization curriculum that creates 

a career path for professionals doing retrofit work that will provide 

them with long term employability. While HBI includes a certificate component, the development of the worker base and a job 

skills training in retrofit work is the centerpiece of the program 

and meets the goal of creating jobs in the emerging retrofit industry that will outlast the short term incentives of the program. HBI 

is a legitimate workforce training program that deserves equal considerations with others listed in the draft. The weatherization curVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:20 Nov 27, 2012 Jkt 076017 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A017.XXX A017

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
50 

riculum, although newly introduced was developed via a thorough 

task analysis and skills assessment process and provides four levels of skilled training, apprentice, weatherization worker, weatherization specialist and energy analyst. The curriculum includes 

course work covering everything from basic theory to calculating 

heat loss, in addition to hands-on practicum that teaches workers 

how to install 80 different weatherization products and perform 45 

different installation activities. It is structured to accommodate all 

standards in use and can be administered and offered through a 

network of community colleges around the country among others. 

For example, I am currently teaching—I am currently training 

workers in this program in Houston, Texas as part of a Workforce 

Investment Grant. The program is currently being delivered 

throughout a number of partnerships with Goodwill Industries, the 

Carpenters’ Union, Ferris State University, among other. Above all, 

the program is about equipping workers with the appropriate job 

skills to serve them for their entire career and not just selling a 

certification credential. In that regard, HBI is considered a legitimate workforce development program along with other currently 

listed in the draft. 

Another important item that may affect a successful implementation of HomeStar is the effective date of an EPA rule covering renovation and retrofit work in pre-1978 homes beginning on April 22 

of this year. Unfortunately, EPA does not have enough certified 

renovators that can legitimately work to retrofit older housing that 

the HomeStar Program hopes to target. Contractors cannot meet 

the EPA’s certification requirements for the Lead Renovation Repair and Paint Rule by April 22 and will be breaking Federal law 

if they work on pre-1978 homes. NAHB supports lead-safe work 

practices as well as retrofit incentives but unless compliance issues 

with the lead rule are addressed I believe this could deter work in 

older, less efficient homes. NAHB supports retrofitting older homes 

and we are truly the experts in this field. We support the benefits 

in both job creation and energy savings that the program like 

HomeStar could deliver but we are wary of the potential limitations such as the exclusion of HBI and the effective date of the 

EPA rule. We believe both of these issues if not addressed could ultimately limit the impact of HomeStar. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here and present our thoughts 

on this proposal and we look forward to working with you. I would 

be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pratt follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
51 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 59 here 76017A.028

Statement of Christopher A.S. Pratt, 

On Behalf of the National Association of Home Builders 

"HomeStar: Job Creation Through Home Energy Retrofits" 

House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment 

March 18, 2010 

Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Upton, and distinguished members of the 

Subcommittee, my name is Chris Pratt and I am a construction design and energy specialist from 

Troy, Michigan. I am pleased to present testimony today on behalf of the 175,000 members of 

the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), representing every aspect of the residential 

construction industry - single family and multi-family builders, light commercial builders, 

remodelers, renovators, material suppliers, and appliance manufacturers. I have over 25 years 

experience in custom design building and most recently, I have been working on the development 

of a robust weatherization and retrofit curriculum for the residential construction industry. 

I am pleased to be able to testify today on the Home Star proposal and its implications for 

creating jobs through improved energy performance in existing homes. NAHB supports efforts to 

create long term workforce development by equipping workers with career-path job skills in the 

home retrofit industry, also called weatherization. NAHB also supports efforts to incentivize 

energy performance upgrades to the 130 million existing homes, many of which were built without 

energy-efficient measures. We believe Congress is taking the right approach with this effort and 

our hope is that the end-product will be one that every legitimately-trained worker can equally 

access, and that the details of implementing this multi-billion dollar effort are not crafted to 

exclude programs that meet the stated goals of Congress and the Administration. 
52 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 60 here 76017A.029

NAHB Members Demonstrate Retrofit Success 

NAHB Remodelers and members have been undertaking retrofit projects for years and 

have established networks to deliver large-scale projects, like Home Star, already in place. 

Despite the dramatic downturn in housing, the industry is poised to implement a retrofit program 

that employs the skills and expertise already mastered by builders and remodelers who rely upon 

the delivery system and supply-chain that runs between retrofit contractors and product 

manufacturers. NAHB members have a proven track record of success in programs like this, 

primarily because we have been doing this work for years. 

An example of a retrofit success that is particularly relevant to the draft Home Star 

legislation is Project Reenergize - www.projectreenergize.org.This successful retrofit program 

was administered and managed by the Builders Association of Minnesota (BAM) under a grant 

from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA). This program leveraged just $3 

million dollars of ARRA funding into a consumer rebate retrofit program that not only provided 

high-quality efficiency upgrades to consumers in Minnesota, but also delivered additional 

remodeling work to contractors that exceeded the promotional items as well. In a few short 

months at the end 2009, Project Reenergize completed 800 retrofit projects on over 1,400 homes 

with an average rebate to the consumer of $2,300. 

The success of Project Reenergize is not only that it moved rapidly with remarkable 

results, but also that it was managed efficiently and did not suffer the same bureaucratic issues 

that plagued other ARRA weatherization-type projects. First, as a consumer rebate program, 

Project Reenergize was not subject to Davis-Bacon wage requirements, as every other 

weatherization project faced, because it was awarded an exemption by the Department of Labor. 

Secondly, because the State of Minnesota did not have the network available to deliver the 

funding quickly, it allowed the BAM to administer the rebate program, similar to the proposed 

Rebate Aggregator role in the draft Home Star legislation. BAM verified that the contractors were 

appropriately trained and qualified to do the work, as well as reviewed all quality control 

2 
53 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 61 here 76017A.030

paperwork and any field inspections prior to issuing the rebates. BAM was uniquely positioned to 

be the link between the manufacturers, distributors, retailers, contractors, and trainers in this 

regard. Thus, NAHB believes that the success of Project Reenergize should be a model for how 

a larger, national rebate program should function and that there is a key role for the other 800+ 

state and local home builder associations across the U.S. 

Home Builders Institute (HBII - Workforce Training 

Workforce development through a legitimate program should include appropriate criteria 

for workforce preparedness and job skills training to equip professionals with specific trade skills 

to give workers career-long opportunities in the field. Developing a "retrofit industry" should 

involve creating a worker-base of skilled contractors, including displaced workers, and others 

entering the workforce for the first time. Training professionals with appropriate retrofit skills in 

programs accessible through federally-funded and approved programs (e.g., Job Corps), should 

be paramount to promoting specific certification credentials from various organizations that may 

or may not support any underlying workforce training. 

In this regard, one specific omission in the draft Home Star legislation is the exclusion of 

the Home Builders Institute (HBI) from the definition of a "certified workforce" in Section 2(4). HBI 

is the largest Job Corps partner with the U.S. Department of Labor and is currently structured to 

serve workers from youth to adults; providing a career path for the residential construction (and 

home weatherization) industry. Because HBI is already a recognized partner with a federal 

agency and is a legitimate workforce program that provides the same skills training and job 

preparation that the draft Home Star legislation seeks to promote, it seems logical that it should 

be included. 

Beginning in 2001, HBI developed a craft trade specific training program focusing 

exclusively on the residential construction industry. The Residential Construction Academy 

Series published by Delmar Learning, a leading trade textbook publisher, features textbooks and 

electronic teaching materials in the subjects of Carpentry, House Wiring, Plumbing, HVAC, 

3 
54 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 62 here 76017A.031

Masonry and Facilities Maintenance. "Basic Principles for Construction" serves as an 

introduction to the curriculum. Weatherization and retrofit strategies and practices are imbedded 

throughout the RCA Series' trade titles, many of which are in their 2nd editions. The training is 

based on national skill standards identified by residential builders, remodelers and educators. 

RCA Series materials are used in high schools, two-year colleges and workforce preparedness 

programs, including Job Corps, throughout the U.S. - (www.residentialacademy.com) 

HBI provides certification for both instructors and students who utilize its materials through 

the National Occupational Competency Testing Institute (NOCTI). NOCTI is a leading provider of 

high-quality occupational competency assessment products and services to secondary and postsecondary educational institutions in the U.S. and worldwide. In 2009, HBI correlated all of its 

training materials used in Job Corps training, as well as its Pre-Apprenticeship Certificate Training 

(PACT) used to train disadvantaged audiences, to the ANSI approved ICC-700-2008 National 

Green Building StandardTM. These materials present entry-level, pre-apprenticeship training on 

craft trades involved in the weatherization of existing homes. Furthermore, HBI also created a 

40-hour training certification on weatherization and retrofitting for industry practitioners, which 

includes classroom and hands-on training and an associated certification. This training can be 

administered through home builder associations or community colleges throughout the U.S. In 

the last 28 years, HBI has trained well over 150,000 professionals - youth to adults - in the 

residential construction industry. 

HBI Weatherization Curriculum - Development and Content 

The weatherization and retrofit curriculum was developed via a thorough skills 

assessment, task analysis, and DACUM (Developing a Curriculum) process, an internationallyrecognized and legally-defensible job analysis method. In this process, experts in the field, i.e., 

job practitioners, are used to help develop curriculum instead of having curriculum developed by 

instructors, college professors, interest groups, or other outside parties. The task analyses are 

structured to accommodate all standards in use, so it is flexible enough to work everywhere and 

4 
55 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 63 here 76017A.032

is not limited geographically, The program is also designed to be widely available with at least 

two testing locations per state - total of 1382 - and can be used in home builder associations 

(over 500 nationwide), as well as community colleges throughout the U,S, Currently, the 

weatherization curriculum is being delivered through partnerships with the Greater Houston 

Builders Association, NAHB, Goodwill Industries Intemational, Inc" United Brotherhood of 

Carpenters and Joiners of America, Adult Reading Center, Inc" Ferris State University, Michigan 

Association of Home Builders, and The Heat and Warmth Fund (THAW), 

The weatherization curriculum includes coursework, hands-on training, and covers four 

levels of job training: apprentice, weatherization worker, weatherization speCialist, and energy 

analyst (see attached training curriculum chart), Each level of training requires different skills 

proficiency and different levels of coursework and training, The coursework uses adult leaming 

techniques and covers the status of energy consumption, forms of energy, basic theory, thermal 

envelope, vapor barriers, air barriers, anatomy of a home terminology, and calculating heat loss, 

The practicum includes actual hands-on disposable home components so workers can learn how 

to install 80 different weatherization products and perform 45 activities, Some of those include: 

• insulating foundations 

• insulating and air sealing bonds 

• insulating floors 

• insulating walls (new and existing) - blown, batt, and foam 

• sealing wall penetrations with caulking and foam 

• re-glazing and repairing windows and doors 

• replacing windows and doors 

• cutting into accesses 

• correcting attic ventilation and baffle problems 

• insulating flat and sloped ceilings 

• insulating knee walls 

5 
56 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 64 here 76017A.033

• sealing and insulating ductwork 

• installation of setback thermostats 

• water heater blankets 

• low flow shower heads and aerators 

• blower door, duct blaster, thermography, combustion gas, and worst 

case testing for Energy Analyst program 

The program is designed for workforce skill development in these areas and is intended for 

professionals to use in a full-time career. The HBI training program is much more robust than just 

giving someone a certification credential for short-term use. The program is designed to develop 

skills for workers to use throughout their entire professional career. 

NAHB recommends including the Home Builders Institute (HBI) workforce development 

training program in addition to Building Performance Institute (BPI), North American Technician 

Excellence, and Laborers International Union of North America, as a qualifying program for a 

"certified workforce." NAHB does not believe that relegating the inclusion of HBI to a decision by 

the Secretary of Energy to use "other standards" is sufficient to ensure meaningful consideration. 

Workforce development and proficiency is different than simply possessing a certification 

credential, which mayor may not mean that a worker is truly equipped with appropriate skills. 

Promoting certain certification credentials and programs under the definition of "certified 

workforce," while excluding other legitimate workforce training programs is incredibly shortsighted. In this draft, the Subcommittee should either consider removing each named reference 

entirely and allow the consultative process between the Department of Energy and the 

Department of Labor to determine program legitimacy for the purpose of this legislation, or 

consider listing all programs by name that meet qualification criteria for workforce development. 

If keeping those named references remains included, then NAHB respectfully requests that HBI 

be listed by name along with the other named programs under Section 2(4)(A). 

6 
57 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 65 here 76017A.034

Implementation of the EPA: Lead Renovation. Repair and Painting Rule (LRRP): 

NAHB is also concerned with the implementation of the EPA's Lead: Renovation, Repair 

and Painting Rule (LRRP) and the potential conflict with Home Star. Despite attempts to urge 

quick action by EPA to train enough certified renovators in time to meet the deadline, thousands 

of contractors have yet to be trained to meet normal compliance demands under the EPA's 

estimates for this rule. With the potential influx of billions of dollars into a retrofit program, 

designed to improve the efficiency in the same housing stock subject to the rule, it may either 

deter work in pre-1978 homes due to the liability, or it may encourage some contractors to 

undertake work illegally on pre-1978 homes if not properly certified after April 22, 2010. 

EPA finalized the LRRP rule in August 2008 covering all renovation work in homes built 

before 1978 to "minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards created during renovation, repair, 

and painting activities in all housing and other buildings frequented by children under age 6." 

Unfortunately, EPA did not begin training until July 2009, and has been slow to approve and 

accredit training programs, training providers, and online training courses for non-"hands-on" 

portion. This has led to serious deficits in providing enough "certified renovators" to meet the 

compliance demands of the LRRP rule, and worse yet, it may derail the success of a retrofit 

program designed to create jobs, like Home Star. 

Obviously, the homes in the most desperate need of retrofit are those built prior to the 

introduction of energy codes in the late 1970s. This substantial segment of the housing stock -

about 68% of all existing homes - numbers roughly 79 million. In order to address these millions 

of older homes, EPA estimated that it would need 212,000 certified firms and 236,000 certified 

contractors prior to the April 22, 2010'. Additionally, EPA proposed adding an amendment to the 

LRRP rule in October 2009, which substantially increases the number of homes subject to the 

rule, thereby increasing the need for additional trained firms and contractors by 110,000 and 

I u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Final Rule for 

Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities, (March 2008). table ES~4. 

7 
58 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 66 here 76017A.035

115,000, respectively, all prior to the April 22, 2010 deadline2

• As of February 19, 2010, EPA 

reported that is has certified 13,669 renovators in LSWP [See Appendix I]. Furthermore, EPA 

reports that some States still do not have any accredited training providers to offer the EPA 

training, including the States of Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, West 

Virginia, and Wyoming3

. 

Simply, EPA has not certified enough contractors for adequate compliance with the LRRP 

rule, a problem which will only be magnified by the Home Star program. To date, EPA has only 

accredited approximately 135 firms and 13,669 individuals, far below the 236,000 threshold it set 

for itself in March 2008. While NAHB is doing its part in conjunction with our state and local home 

builder associations, who have already held 231 training courses with another 500 planned, EPA 

has generally been deficient in its efforts to inform the regulated community about the LRRP rule 

and has done virtually nothing to inform the public. 

Consumer awareness of this regulation is negligible, at best, and with the heavy media 

campaign that will undoubtedly accompany Home Star, homeowners will rush to call contractors 

to perform efficiency upgrades in older housing, not realizing that many of those contractors could 

be doing the work illegally if they are not EPA certified. While the consumer would not bear the 

liability for violations, contractors that violate the statute are subject to fines and civil penalties 

(under Toxic Substances Control Act, $37,500 per violation, per dal), which will provide a 

disincentive for working on pre-1978 homes. 

Regardless of the certification and training parameters as prescribed for Home Star 

projects, all contractors must comply with the LRRP rule. In order to comply, contractors must 

belong to a "certified firm," which requires paying a fee to EPA or delegated State program, and 

"certified firms" must have at least one trained "certified renovator" that must be present at the 

;: u.s. EPA, Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead, Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Opt-Out and Recordkeeping Proposed Rule 

for Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities, ES-2 (October 2009). 

~ U.S. EPA, http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/trainingproviders.htm [accessed 9 March 2010J. 

40 C.F.R. §745.220(b) 

8 
59 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 67 here 76017A.036

outset and completion of renovation work in housing subject to the rule5

. Since EPA has 

publicized a plan showing that it expects only a portion of the regulated community to be able to 

comply with the LRRP rule by the effective date under normal market conditions, NAHB has 

serious doubts that it could accommodate the influx of new renovation contractors in the context 

of a multi-billion retrofit program that is specifically designed to create jobs working on the same 

housing stock covered by the LRRP rule. 

NAHB believes that delaying the effective date of the LRRP rule is appropriate and that 

there is sufficient precedent for taking such action. In 2000, the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD) faced a similar problem implementing a lead rule that covered 

federally-owned housing due to lack of trained (certified) personnel. The rule was finalized on 

September 11, 2000, but due to the lack of certified professionals to implement it, an extension, 

of sorts, was granted whereby program participants that had properties built after 1960 were 

granted a "transition assistance period" and could file a "statement of inadequate capacity" that 

essentially indicated their intent to comply with the rule once enough certified professional were 

available to do the work. As the need dictated, these transitional periods continued to be 

available until January 10, 2002, when it was determined that there was finally enough capacity to 

comply with the rule. If this process was appropriate to establish compliance for federally-owned 

housing stock, it seems justifiable for use in this case where substantially more homes are 

affected. 

Conclusion 

NAHB supports home retrofits because we believe this is the best approach to delivering 

meaningful energy savings in the residential sector. NAHB members have already demonstrated 

tremendous success crafting, administering, and operating home retrofit programs, like Project 

Reenergize in Minnesota. NAHB members have the network, expertise, and capacity to deliver a 

5 40 C.F.R. §745.85 

9 
60 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 68 here 76017A.037

robust retrofit program because we have been doing this work for years and we believe our 

experience is an asset to developing a national program. 

NAHB believes the problem of energy lost in existing homes is too big, and the job losses 

in our industry are too dire, to limit in any way access for highly-qualified, trained, and skilled 

workers to be able to execute a comprehensive home retrofit program. The workforce 

development arm of the residential construction industry - HBI - has taken the initiative to 

develop a workforce component that trains workers in weatherization jobs, equips them with 

employability skills, and provides a career-path in retrofit work that they can take with them well 

into the future. As Congress hopes to create a "certified workforce" for these types of programs, 

as envisioned in this draft, HBI should be given equal consideration, alongside other named 

programs. 

10 
61 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 69 here 76017A.038

Appendix I 

EPA Lead: Renovation Reoair and Paintina tLRRP) Rule Stats as of 2/19/10 

Certified Courses by (Data from U.S. EPA) 

State Renovators State 

AK 97 10 

AL 163 10 

AR 40 2 

AZ 55 3 

CA 742 60 

CO 378 41 

CT 239 22 

DC 35 2 

DE 56 12 

FL 468 48 

GA 289 16 

HI 21 3 

IA 75 1 

ID 204 20 

IL 356 27 

IN 343 28 

K5 62 4 

KY 149 9 

LA 103 7 

MA 389 39 

MD 461 39 

ME 188 11 

MI 588 57 

MN 569 42 

MO 187 12 

MS 76 6 

MT 6 0 

NC 542 45 

ND 70 5 

NE 515 37 

NH 124 7 

NJ 259 21 

NM 91 6 - NV 17 2 

NY 976 84 

OH 1004 71 

OK 119 2 

OR 289 26 I 

PA 407 32 

RI 12 0 

SC 166 19 

SD 147 7 

TN 94 13 

TX 670 61 
62 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 70 here 76017A.039

Appendix I 

EPA Lead: Renovation ReDair and Paintina ILRRP) Rule Stats as of 2119110 

UT 6 0 (Data from U.S. EPA) 

VA 323 23 

VT 44 4 

WA 245 27 

WI 1170 59 

WV 21 1 

WY 6 0 

Canada 1 0 

Null 12 4 

TOTAL 13669 1087 

2/19/2010 

Insert offset folio 71 here 76017A.040jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 

WEATHERIZATION SPECIALIST AND ENERGY ANALYST TRAINING PROGRA

APPRENTICE 

Prerequisites: 

6.0 TASE Score 

(math & reading) 

WEATHERIZATION 

WORKER 

(WKR) 

Prerequisites: 

Apprentice Level 

6.5 T ABE Score 

(math & reading) 

WEATHERIZATION 

SPECIALIST (WSP) 

Prerequisites: 

WRK, OSHA, 

Firs! Aid & CPR, 

lead (3R's), 

Air Quality 

8.0 TASE Score 

(math & reading) 

Energy 

Analyst 

Prerequisites: 

WSP (80hrs. OT J) 

Prereq. Compo Skills 

10.0 TASE Score 

'.-:'-

2 Weeks 

(251m; Lecture + 25hrs PracIlcum + JOhn> fuThNOb) 

:e: 

j 

:e: 

Pra

i 

• L":'_J_ ( _I, 
64 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 72 here 76017A.041

Insert offset folio 73 here 76017A.042jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 

Curriculum Overview 

1.1,0,0 

A.1.1.0 

1.5.0.0 

A12.0 Movie 

1.6,0.0 

2.1.0,0 BaskEnergyTheory 

2.1.2.0 ConductIOn 

A.2.1.0 STUcxerc'se 

2.L2.1 R"Valueof Building Materials 

AZ.2.0 RNalueExertise 

2-1.3.0 

2.1.3.1 

6.7.1.0 

A.2.3,Q 

A.lA.O 

A.6.1.Q 

Class/# 

3.0.0.0 

3.1.0.0 

A.3.1.0 

3.3.0.0 3.4.0.0 

A.3.2.0 

4.3.0.0 4.3.1.0 

4.5.1.0 

4.5.2.0 4.5.3.0 

4.5.4.0 

3/10/2010 

Convection 

Blower Door Introduction 

Blower Door Exercise 

Radiation 

I Convection {Radiation Exercise 

Vapor bamersand retarders 

MOisture barriers 

Mo,sturebarrierexercise 

Basic Anatomy of the Home 

Basic Foundations 

framed Floors 

Above Grade Walls 

framing members 

Fenestrations and penetrations 

Ceding and roof members 

Systems 

Mechanical 

Ventilation 

Break Break 

Bn:ak 

lund' 

Break Break Break Break 

Lunch 

Break 

Break 

Break 

Break 

" 

10 

15 15 

15 

" 

10 

30 

40 

30 

" 

15 

10 

50 

" 10 

50 50 50 

20 20 

10 

20 m 

10 " 

m 

10 10 

U 

15 U 

m 

a 

u 

m 

10 ill 

10 

20 20 

20 m " 

10 ill 

_U 

ill 

• 

10 10 

15 D 

10 " 10 

D 

15 

ill 

10 10 

10 

50 

I r 

10 10 

50 

10 10 

"S.7 8:00 9;00 12:00 

50 

10 

20 

20 

10 10 

Copyright 2010 - Construction Development Services, LLC. Apprentice 

Insert offset folio 74 here 76017A.043jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 

6.0,0.0 Tool safely and Introduction 10 10 6.2.0.0 10 10 6.2.0.0 10 6.3.0.0 Power Tools 10 

Break 

6.4.0.0 ladders and 10 10 

6-1.0.0 Tool safety 10 10 6.6.0.0 SOftware Modeling Tools 10 20 

lunch 30 30 

A.7.1.0 Caulk & faam 60 60 

Break 10 10 

Weather-stripping 30 30 

A.7.3,1 Insulate and seal bond (part 1) 6Q 60 

A9.1.0 Math Support 90 90 

Classff Oay4 Our. 1.5 I 8:00 I 9:00 I 10:00 I 11:00 t 12:00 I 1:00 I 2:00 I 3:00 I 

A.7.?.2 Insulate and seal bond (part 2) 60 

Simple attic insulation 10 

A.7A.i Baffles & air Dams 50 50 

A7.4.2 Batt (demonstration) 60 60 

Blown (demonstration) 60 

lunch 30 30 

Drywall repa!r (part 1) 60 60 

Break 10 

A.7.6.1 Wmterue/longtermvacancy homes 10 10 

A.7.6.1.1 Board up windows 10 SO 

Break 10 10 

Plumbing (winterile) 

OW5 Jeq. 8,2 

A.7.6,1.3 Change locks 60 

A.7.6.1.4 Roofrepair 20 100 110 

A.7.S.2 30 30 

10 50 60 

UiflCh 30 

7.0.0.0 Job Site Safety 60 60 

Break 10 

APR-Finall Final 120 

Toi<l{Hours 41 

3/10/2010 Copyright 2010" Construction and Development Services, LLC. - Apprentice 
67 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 75 here 76017A.044

~ ~ ~ r ~ c 

~ ~ ~ ii 

~ ,~~ ~ ~ g ?~;jj 

~ ~ i!! ~ g .~. g 

., .•.. . ~ )[f 

~ I ~ y} g 

~} ~ II ~ II 8 " " I " II 8 ~~ ~ lli! 

~ ~ ~;; ~ ~ ~ .~ 

8 g 

\l~ ~I • ~ .'. ~ ~ ~; 

~ 

.' 

~ ~ g. 8 ;. .• > ,'ili m. ~; 

g lilii ~ g ~ 8 i' 

g£$§~§$g$;:': 

• e 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

] 1; ~ ] ~ ] " 3 3 

'" ~ '" ! ! ! ! " " 

j 1 , 1 "1 .~ f t ~ ~ ~ g ! • g ! ~ g ;: ! I .~ 

, " <II i1 J; ~ ~ f ~ ~ j 'i!: ! " I • I I i ~ ~ !l <II " § , ~ l , > ! ~ " ~ j M , ~ i ~ 

0 ! ~ £ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E £ e ~ j ~ ::> 

:; ~ j ~ " " " ~ ~ 

~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ " ~ :; ~ '" '" " ~ ~ ~ 'E • • • ~ , • ~ • • v " ~ 
68 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 76 here 76017A.045

" '[ 

:;; 1 " " " " l , li e -' 

i ! -' " ~ i f " f ~ 

~ " ~J " ~ ! j ~ ] , z ~ ~ 

8 

~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ . ~ , ~ " ~~ ~ • ~ j~ ~ ~ ~ i!~ • ~ ~ 

~ ;3~ 
69 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 77 here 76017A.046

! ~ 1 ~ 

~ ~~ J rI'; 

!t';';~ ,¢ 

~ 

••• 

~ ~ 

'" ;~ ;,)~f4 ::;~ g; 

~ 8 8 ~ 

g 

I 8 I g ,/ 8 

" I 8 ::1; 8 8 ;~ 8 

~ •. 

g fA ~. 

~ ... 

~ •• $!! 

~ ~ I'''· 

Ie 

I 

j I j " I I .~ I , ~ g ] ,! ~ ~ i , 

I J .§ § ~ E j ! I 8 ~ ~ 

~ ~ J j ] ~ 

, ~ ~ ~ 0 i J E f f ~ 1 I ] "1 • 1 J J ~ , a ~ j E ~ 

J 8 ~ 

E '" E ! " ~ " ~ ~ § ~ 

a ~ e ~ ~ .; 

a N 

" " " ~ "' . .; 

" , s " ~'N 

~ q ~ 5 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ " 
70 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 78 here 76017A.047

•• ~ ~.: 

... ~ .. 

~ .. 

% % % 

i i ~ 

E ! I ~ 

! i , ~ , , ~ 

" . , ~ i 

1 ! g 

~ iii ;; j i i- t ! "1 I & i • , t 

~ j j 1 ] , !! 8 , j 1 1 t I i it ~ j ,go . f , • ~ ! , , go , j , ] ] r ~ i J j I I f i i ! % ~ ~ i i I j , , ! ! ] ~ ] ] j ] ! ~ ] f i1 3 ~ i' • ~ ! , ~ £ i~ ~ a " ~ ~ " !1 ~ ] g ~ if ~ 

~ ~ ci ~ a ~ N ~ ~ 

~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

. < ., ~'~ ~ ., . . ~ " :; :; . " " ~ ~ ~ vi 

a ~, ~ a 

Insert offset folio 79 here 76017A.048jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 

Curriculum Overview 

.",iifi •• "@tiMNIM 

.payh .., 

lAO.O.O 20 20 

M.l.l.O.O 20 

Break 10 10 

1.5.1.0.0 An intr()dUctiQn to Green Bu!!ding (part 1) 

An intr()ducUon to Green Suddmg (part 2) 

Lundt 30 

6.7.0.0.0 30 6,7.1.1.0 30 

M.l.2.l.0 Advanced blower door - Oemonstrat,oll 

20 

Advanced blowerdoor(part 2j 120 

15 

30 

Break 2Q 

30 

lunch 30 

Ouct b!aster· Demonstrattol1 20 

Ouctblaster-Exerdse 6() 

Break 20 

6.7.4.0.0 

M.5.3.M 20 

20 

Combustion testing· fxerdse 50 

Cla.s# OayJ; as 

6.7,5.0,0 CFMMelerlntroduCllOn 

CfMMeter-Demonstration 20 '" 20 

Break 20 

M.6.4.2.0 CFMMeter-Exercise 30 

6,7-6,0.0 20 

M.SS.l.O 10 

Break 20 

Lunch 30 

6.1.8.0,0 Oata recording toois Introduction 

M.S.G.l.O OaUl recordingtoo!s· Demo &. herdse 

Break " 10 

5.1.0.0.0 30 

Sreak 

M.S.LO.O 

g" 

M.6.8.0.0 

M,6,Kl,O 

10 10 

M.G.Kl.1 Navigat,on (using the mO\Jse) 30 

Break 

M.6,S.2.0 .. mUajModets) 2Q 

M.6.8.2.1 Orawmgshapes " 30 

Extrudinllsurfac<)5 10 

M.6.8.2,3 Oeletingsurfaces 10 30 " 40 

3/10/2010 Lt.C "Energy Analyst 

Insert offset folio 80 here 76017A.049jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 

M.6,S.2A Creaung m,sllng planes M,6.g.2oS COlor M.6,S.l.6 Exporting Images 

(I/lSS# DayS; 

M.6,S,3.0 lntroductiOrlto AutoCAO 

M,6.S,3.1 Navigation {usmg the mouse) 

M.6.g,3.1 M.6.S.3.3 Draw,ngsh'lpes 

M.6.8.3.4 M.6.S.3.5 M.6JD.6 Adding dimenSions M.6.S.:U M.6.S.3.S 

CI/ln# Pay6: 

M.6.S.4.1 

M.6.8.4.2 introduction to Rastered Graph,cs· Exere'se M.6.3.5.1 Ariel Photography & Google earth Smg Maps (I' 1) 

M.6.S.5.l Ariel Photography & Google earth and Bing Maps (p 2) 

M.6.9,l.O DataColiection;Planlll M.6.9.!.1 Plan Take-Qff 

Class.W: Day 7: 

M.6.9,l.2 Moo",""",,,,,,,,,,,,,, M.6.9.l.3 M.6.9.2.0 M.6.9.2.1 

M.6.9.2.2 

M69.2.3 

M.6.9.9.0 DataCQi!e'tionRev,ew C.,,, 

M.GlO.O.O 

"'" 

M.n,ID.1.0 ReSCheck 30 MG.l0.1.1 M.6.10.l.2 M.G.I0.20 60 M.6.10.2.1 M.6.10.2.2 

9i1$$/} pay9; 

M.6.1O.3,O lntroducbonto RemOes;gn M.6.10.3.2 

M.5.10.4.2 

M.6,10.4.3 

CI/lSSIt 

M.G.10.<1.0 

Measuring and AdlU.t>ng 

M.n.1D.S.D EnergyEducator6asiCs 

MEA.Finall Final 

3/10/2010 

lunch 

lunch 

" 20 

20 

20 

20 

60 

" 60 

" '" 60 

11.0 

20 " 30 

20 

no 

n, 

60 

'.S 

60 30 

" 

'" 8,3 

no no 

60 60 

" 

a:to 

Copyright 201O-COnstruction and DevelopmentServices,LLC. . Energy Analvst 
73 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Pratt. 

That completes the time for opening statements of our witnesses. 

We will now turn to questions from the subcommittee members. 

Ms. Zoi, Governor Engler mentioned this morning a program announced by Vice President Biden. Could you talk about that program and how it dovetails with the program that we are talking 

about here today? 

Ms. ZOI. I think what Governor Engler was referring—how is 

that, better? 

Mr. MARKEY. Yes, fine. 

Ms. ZOI. I think what Governor Engler was referring to is an extension of the 48C Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit, is that 

right? So that is a program that was part of the Recovery Act that 

gives tax breaks for establishing new manufacturing facilities in 

the United States that are in the clean energy sector. The program 

was over-subscribed, $2.3 billion has been allocated to companies 

that are getting things going over the next couple of years that 

they will create lots and lots of jobs in wind, and solar, and energy 

efficiency technologies, and combine heat and power but because it 

has been so wildly over-subscribed, the Vice President is proposing 

that we actually extend that program and top up the money to the 

tune of $5 billion. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK, so we would need to authorize that as well? 

Ms. ZOI. Yes. 

Mr. MARKEY. And you support that, Governor Engler? 

Mr. ENGLER. Yes, we can. 

Mr. MARKEY. Yes, do you support putting the $2 billion back in 

for wind and solar that we took out for the Cash for Clunkers Program as well, Governor? 

Mr. ENGLER. I haven’t looked at that but, you know, we would 

certainly be open to talking about that. I mean I guess we look at 

this sector as being so hard hit that any number of these strategies 

we think can be fairly quickly effective at putting people back to 

work but certainly, we are here on HomeStar today because we just 

think that does put people to work. 

Mr. MARKEY. You were just saying good things about the other 

program so I was just hoping we could just have you get on a whole 

list of programs. 

Mr. ENGLER. You might as well press on there, I understand. 

OK, now I got you. 

Mr. MARKEY. And the Administration supports putting the $2 

billion back in for the wind and solar? 

Ms. ZOI. My understanding is that that provision might have 

been included in the first jobs bill that was just passed but we 

should go back and check but yes, of course. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK, great, I appreciate it. 

Ms. ZOI. Of course. 

Mr. MARKEY. So how many jobs will this program create, Ms. 

Zoi? 

Ms. ZOI. Somewhere in the tens of thousands, I mean I think the 

HomeStar Coalition has done a direct and indirect jobs estimate of 

160,000. The direct jobs would be 60 to 70,000, lots and lots of important jobs. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
74 

Mr. MARKEY. Great. Governor Engler, what is your hope for new 

jobs created by a program like this? 

Mr. ENGLER. We think that this has the potential—I am just 

checking my testimony to make sure I got my number right. I 

think I said sort of like the Secretary. I think it is 168,000 but I 

want to make sure that I get that number right. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Thaman is nodding his head. 

Mr. ENGLER. We just think that the design of this so that the 

homeowner actually once it is passed they can go forward. You are 

going to have the private sector really running the program. We 

would hope that the reimbursement would work better than it did 

with the Cash for Clunkers but I think everybody learned lessons 

off that and that would happen but Mr. Pratt’s mention of the lead 

issue is kind of an interesting one. That probably need to also be 

attended to because you could—I happen to be in a home that was 

built before 1978 and so, you know, I am not sure I can get Mr. 

Pratt to come and take care of that so you can have a lot of people 

caught in that inadvertent situation so part of the cleanup would 

be good and I also would support his suggestion on HBI. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Governor. 

Mr. Thaman, we have heard complaints that HomeStar picks 

winners and losers for home products. Could you talk a little bit 

about the Gold Star Program creating a higher reward program for 

any product that achieves at least 20 percent home energy efficiency? 

Mr. THAMAN. Well, I think there is two ways to look at improving 

the energy efficiency of a home. You can either look at the products 

that we know and have been demonstrated to improve energy efficiency or you can have performance raters come in and rate a 

home. I think there is a good balance between Silver Star and Gold 

Star to target and Silver Star’s specific products and initiatives 

that we know save energy and then Gold Star have a more holistic 

approach, actually rating the home and testing the home for energy 

efficiency improvements. We know based on our history as an insulation manufacturer that any time you install more insulation you 

improve the energy efficiency of a home so it is a pretty safe bet 

to directly fund that initiative. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK and, Mr. Pratt, could you talk about the Gold 

Star Program and how that does reward any product that is more 

efficient. 

Mr. PRATT. As an energy rater myself, I personally believe that 

the performance based tests tend to be more efficient or guarantee 

or help improve the chances that the improved measures were installed correctly. So I also do some training, Mr. Upton might be 

aware, of the warm or excuse me, the program in Michigan where 

they go around and help homeowners install products in their existing home. I find sometimes when you are up in an attic space 

and it is 140 degrees, you spend less time working on the insulation then you do trying to get out of the attic space. So a lot of 

times there are good efforts put into tests but sometimes they don’t 

get all installed the way you would like them to be installed. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK, thank you, Mr. Pratt. 

Let me turn and recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Upton. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
75 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I, you know, as 

I have talked to some of my colleagues on our side and heard some 

of the opening statements there is clearly some skepticism on this 

bill and in large part, you know, as we looked at the DOEIG report 

issued last month of the $4.7 billion that was awarded in grants 

under the Stimulus Plan, only $368 million has been used by the 

States so far and only some 30,000 that have been used. And I, you 

know, this was supposed to be a shovel-ready program, ready to go 

and clearly there was some need and as we look at the way that 

the Cash for Clunkers Program was administered, I mean I think 

most of us thought it would be pretty easy to do. You got 25,000 

auto dealers across the country. There were provisions on fraud 

and abuse that were in place. You had to show that the car had 

been insured, actually would run and, you know, it had to meet the 

mileage requirements that anyone could figure out from the Internet and the dealers were supposed to be reimbursed I want to say 

within 7 days. And I bet everyone of us here on both sides of the 

aisle heard from lots of our dealers saying it has been more than 

a month. We have got dozens of cars sometimes some of the larger 

dealers 50–100 cars the Department of Transportation hired more 

than 1,000 people. I mean that is, you know, they only had to make 

about two calls to a dealer per day to figure all this out with the 

documentation to get them done and it didn’t happen. And now you 

are talking about a program that may be as large as eight times 

as more. This was a $3 billion program, Cash for Clunkers, over 

a limited span of time. They did 750,000 vehicles. You have got 

more builders. There is already a tax credit that is in place for 

homeowners to make whatever adjustments that they want up to 

I think it is $1,500 tax credit on work that has to be at least that 

is what a 30 percent tax credit on business that is done and as we 

look at fraud and abuse and how is at DOE that you are going to 

be able to determine whether people did both. They actually took 

a tax credit and then they did a deal with their builder that is supposed to be passed through them. Why not just keep it as a tax 

credit and let the power of the IRS make sure that there is some 

compliance versus what you are going to have to do in terms of additional staff and certification and everything else? Do you see 

where the skepticism comes on our side? 

Ms. ZOI. And I would love to. 

Mr. UPTON. Yes, go ahead. 

Ms. ZOI. A very good series of issues that you raised and I welcome the opportunity to talk about first of all, how we the structure 

that we have in mind for this which is designed to leverage private 

sector expertise that is already taking place. The design for the 

main Government function is to prevent waste, fraud and abuse 

and to publish eligibility standards for the contractors that are capable of doing the work. I would also like to take a moment if I 

may to update the committee on the data about the Weatherization 

Program. So, in fact, why don’t I take that one first? 

Mr. UPTON. OK. 

Ms. ZOI. So the Weatherization Program as you point out is about a $5 billion program. The Recovery Act didn’t double weatherization. It didn’t triple it. It multiplied it times 25 so 900 community action agencies had to spend a few months hiring more people. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
76 

We had it was the first time ever that Davis Bacon wages were applied. The Labor Department had to determine what fair wages 

were. So the community action agencies spent the summer months 

hiring, training, figuring out the Davis Bacon wages. The ramp up 

well and truly started in the fall. We tripled the number of homes 

that were done between September and December. The ramp rate 

that we need to be at to meet the overall goals for the program by 

March, 2012, is about 20 to 25,000 homes a month. We estimate 

in February there was a short month and it was a snowy month 

in most of the country but we did probably 17,000 homes so we are 

within striking distance to our max ramp rate that is required. 

This is actually a great tribute to the ability of these 900 community action agencies to ramp up quickly. So it took longer then expected to get going but I would also I applaud what Congressman 

Barrow pointed out, this was a program that is 30 years old. It has 

certain structures in place. The Federal Government has to give 

money to the States. The States then give money to the local community action agencies. It is a well-established network. We are designing the HomeStar Program to not have be encumbered by some 

of those same things that service the low income community only 

so what we have then done is pivoted and said well Cash for 

Clunkers may have had a few hiccups. 

Mr. UPTON. A few. 

Ms. ZOI. Because it required 9 pdf to be submitted for every single transaction as you pointed out so what we have in mind here 

is something that uses modern IT that has a list of we work very 

closely with rebate aggregators who are the network managers for 

the sector. They put together, we put together a simple form that 

is filled out by all the certified contractors. Those eligibility criteria 

are all listed and then with the Federal what the Department of 

Energy has to do is ensure once the rebates are aggregated and 

submitted we do the reimbursement. The second part of it is establishing a quality assurance program and we work in partnership 

with the States because again they are the ones who have home 

inspector networks and what we do is capitalize on the fact that 

even some of those home inspectors are don’t have much to do 

these days. We put those guys back to work. They are part of our 

quality assurance scheme where the States that are not quite 

ready to do the quality assurance, the Federal Government provides that default function. So we are absolutely taking very seriously the concerns that you have raised about other programs, taking it to heart and we feel very strongly that we can establish this 

program to get going as quickly as possible to get people back to 

work. 

Mr. UPTON. I know my time has expired so I yield back. Thank 

you. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Doyle. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Zoi, and you have just started to touch on this and I 

want you to expand on it further. A few years ago in my State of 

Pennsylvania, we had an internal audit of the Weatherization Assistance Program and it resulted that there was a backlog of nearly 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
77 

9,000 applicants for the program, many of them constituents of 

mine that qualified for the program were stuck in this backlog and 

though the program was federally funded it was administered by 

Pennsylvania’s Department of Community and Economic Development. So while I am very obviously excited about the HomeStar 

Program, I want to see it get going. I am a little concerned about 

the backlog. I just want to ask four quick questions and have you 

just comment on them and I think some of them you have touched 

on already. Is EPA prepared to process the rebates the contractors 

in the 30-day timeframe set out in the bill and what portion of this 

will be the State’s responsibility? Do you foresee that it will require 

additional staff at DOE or EPA and at the State level to process 

these rebates? Will small businesses be able to process the rebates 

in the same timeframe as big box retailers like Home Depot or 

Lowe’s? And then finally, I am concerned about the quality assurance measurement and how will we make sure that the work that 

is being done is good work? Homeowners are going to be able to 

measure the success of their work by their energy savings and this 

means that we don’t have much margin for error. Can you explain 

how the contractors will be certified and who is going to be responsible for the oversight of the installations? 

Ms. ZOI. Yes, OK so the 30-day processing the answer is yes, we 

will absolutely do the 30-day processing. The small business eligibility again what we want the rebate aggregator concept is so that 

a variety of experts in the field, sector specialists, can help the 

small guys with what they need and be able to contribute so rebate 

aggregators might be the big box guys. They might be utilities. 

They might be existing home performance with Energy Star States 

that work very well with small businesses in bundling up those. 

Mr. MARKEY. Ms. Zoi, could you move that microphone in just a 

little bit closer, please, just pull it in. 

Ms. ZOI. How is that? 

Mr. MARKEY. OK, good. 

Ms. ZOI. So there are a variety of ways that the small business 

folks will be able to play and will be able to get the attention that 

they need quickly through the proposed structure. In terms of quality assurance for the contractors again, what we envision is that 

20 percent of the jobs will get a field inspection, a post expert field 

inspection that folks that sign up for the program will agree that 

they will be—that they will make their home available for quality 

assurance because consumer confidence that they are going to get 

quality work is very, very important. There are a variety of contractors that are out there that do QA right now that will be part 

of this program. Again, the idea that we have got is that we lean 

on the States to be overseeing the programs that are happening 

within their States and again that what we are doing is we are 

leveraging work that is already happening right now and building 

on it and amplifying it to move quickly. 

Mr. DOYLE. So what are we doing to make sure that States have 

sufficient manpower and personnel to make sure this, you know, 

how do we ensure that, you know, the State of Pennsylvania who 

had a 9,000 case backlog administering this program that this 

doesn’t happen again. What onuses are put on the State or what 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
78 

responsibility is put on the State to make sure they have sufficient 

personnel to do this, too? 

Ms. ZOI. Well, there is financial—if the bill passes in its current 

formulation there are financial resources that are allocated to the 

States to be able to stand up those good quality assurance programs. 

Mr. DOYLE. OK, thank you. 

Ms. ZOI. And just to your backlog question on weatherization. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes. 

Ms. ZOI. Unfortunately, there are 40 million people in America 

that are eligible for the low income program. We have been working very closely with Governor Rendell and the State of Pennsylvania and that program I think in Pennsylvania you are going to 

see a whole new set of Weatherization Program going forward so 

hopefully you will have that backlog will be reduced substantially 

in the coming year. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes, I mean it is a good program but we want to see 

it work as good as possible so thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great, the gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, has DOE analyzed whether there are legal requirements that may delay the rollout of the HomeStar Program? 

In particular, will DOE have to take any actions to comply with the 

National Historic Preservation Act? 

Ms. ZOI. That is an excellent question, Congressman Pitts, because it has been some of those issues that have slowed down the 

implementation of the Recovery Act. The way the bill is currently 

configured what our lawyers tell us is that we will be able to stand 

up the program within 60 days of passage. We have to do an administrative rule, that is what the lawyers tell us but because of 

the structure of the law and because much of it is embedded in the 

statute, we will be able to do this very quickly. 

Mr. PITTS. Will DOE have to prepare an environmental analysis 

under NEPA? What kind of environmental review of the program 

would need to be done and how long would that take? 

Ms. ZOI. Again, what is envisioned here is similar to what happened with the categorical exclusion of the Weatherization Program is that essentially it is a very quick, simple, straightforward 

rulemaking because the environmental impacts of doing home retrofits are not material so therefore an environment assessment will 

unlikely be required but again it is a very quick process that won’t 

inhibit speed at all. 

Mr. PITTS. Will there be any requirements that will need to be 

complied with under the program in terms of rates paid to contractors labor costs? 

Ms. ZOI. Again, no Davis Bacon would not apply to this so no. 

Mr. PITTS. In the event that in carrying out the program workers 

are injured or homes are damaged is there any risk of additional 

tax bearer liabilities? 

Ms. ZOI. Again, the way we have tried to structure the program 

is to build on existing contractor relationship certifications licensing and bonding so to the extent that only licensed bonded workers 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
79 

are part of this program that would be covered by whatever insurance they currently carry. 

Mr. PITTS. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Laseter, I have some questions about small business involved in retrofitting industry and how they would benefit from the 

program. In your written testimony you reference 7,000 companies 

that make or install windows, 82 percent of which are small businesses. Of these, how many would you estimate are eligible to participate in the HomeStar Program? 

Mr. LASETER. Under the Silver Star Program, it is structured to 

for anybody as the Secretary said who is licensed and insured according to that State can immediately participate in the Silver Star 

Program so we would expect all of those contractors, those small 

businesses who wish to participate can participate immediately. 

Mr. PITTS. And would that also apply to the reference you have 

for 22,000 insulation installers? 

Mr. LASETER. Yes, sir, that is the reason again the Silver Star 

Program was structured in a way so that those existing small businesses, you know, as long as they are properly licensed and insured 

could participate immediately. 

Mr. PITTS. In your testimony, you indicate 168,000 jobs would be 

anticipated to be created, three million homes would be retrofitted. 

Is this based on an estimate of $6 billion in funding over 2 years? 

Mr. LASETER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PITTS. And what are the assumptions underlying the estimate that three million homes would be retrofitted? 

Mr. LASETER. We can follow-up with the written reports. We 

used the report from AC Triple E and Climate Works who relied 

heavily on the MacKenzie study and other published works to come 

up with those estimates but the HomeStar Coalition would be 

happy to submit the detail. 

Mr. PITTS. Governor, as far as job creation in the manufacturing 

sector is concerned, what impact would a fully implemented 

HomeStar Program have in comparison to new home construction 

returning to pre-recession levels? 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, I don’t know what the new home construction 

gets back to. I said in my testimony if we got back to where we 

were there is an additional 128,000 jobs. I mean these are all estimates. Could HomeStar if we suddenly are able to reach three million homes you get a lot of impact that is not all right in manufacturing because there is a lot of it in the service sector as well that 

is dependent on manufacturing and manufacturing is dependent on 

service people being busy so we can make products for them. I 

don’t have a hard number on that. 

Mr. PITTS. Are there any other programs you would like to see 

included or does HomeStar exclude any beneficial energy efficient 

products or improvements for the home? 

Mr. ENGLER. The committee draft there were some concerns on 

some of the do-it-yourself work that could be done. There has been 

some modification I think that recognizes some of that and as I 

think Mr. Thaman testified there is in the Silver Star there are 

things that can get done very quickly. In the Gold Star you are 

pretty much wide open to I mean if you want to do an entirely new 

HVAC, new water heaters, new whatever it is all there for that so 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
80 

I think it has done a pretty good job. I realize I mean the intention 

is we would like to move quickly to get this gone. In fact, I would 

like to see the agency commit to 30 days to be done. I don’t know 

what there minimums are but, you know, most it shouldn’t take 60 

days of government work to write a simple rule, first draft it is a 

pretty straightforward. That ought to be—the draft ought to be 

done now at the agency so the minute it is signed and the rule is 

filed that we can accelerate this because we got to get away from 

government time and go to private sector time which is much, 

much more aggressive. 

Mr. PITTS. Well, the do-it-yourself, Mr. Thaman, provision in the latest bill draft is $250. Do you know how much the cost for insulation of an average home this would cover? 

Mr. ENGLER. I will turn to Mr. Thaman. We have got an expert 

sitting next to me on that one. 

Mr. THAMAN. You know, again it is going to depend whether you 

have an insulation contractor coming in to install the product for 

you or not but in a typical home if you were to go and buy a product at a big box retailer and bring enough product home to restore 

at least the attic portion of your home to today’s energy codes, certainly for $800 or $1,000 you could buy enough product to bring 

your attic up to code so we would expect for the $250 rebate that 

that is a pretty good size incentive to encourage people to want to 

go do that project. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, I have gone over time, sorry. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired, no problem. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Engler or Governor Engler, I did some careful research about 

your background before this hearing and I understand you are a 

Republican. 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, I was certainly elected that way 10 times. 

Mr. WELCH. Well, what I want to ask you if you are here supporting a program that is advanced by a Democratic Administration, it is being advanced by some of our best manufacturers and 

environmentalists, it is supported by management and labor, by 

homebuilders and homeowners, do you get nervous being in that 

company or should we take this as a suggestion that maybe this 

is a good idea? 

Mr. ENGLER. Well look, the last time I checked with 10 percent 

unemployment rate we have got a lot of unemployment for Republicans and Democrats with enough to go around out there so we 

would like to put people back to work. We think this does that and 

from the manufacturing perspective, we just want to see things put 

in place that will work, that will work quickly and get us back on 

a road to recovery. There is simply not enough demand in this 

country. 

Mr. WELCH. And that is the point and I really do very much appreciate you being here. The other question that is legitimately 

raised is always about details about practical implementation and 

I just ask this of the panel. This is intended to be designed so it 

is simple. You are relying on our local manufacturers like Owens 

Corning and Masco that are already in this work but need more 

demand. You are relying on contractors who are not building 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
81 

homes but know how to retrofit homes so we don’t have to do all 

kinds of training, and we are relying on homeowners who are going 

to have to get in the game, and if I get a $1,500 rebate or pre-bate 

but I have to put $1,500 of my own money in, as a card-carrying, 

free market Republican do you have some confidence that I am 

going to make certain that if I put $1,500 in, the tax payer puts 

$1,500 in, I am going to want to get not $3,000 but maybe $4,000 

worth of value. 

Mr. ENGLER. There is no question about that. That is exactly 

right and this is very different then one member has asked the 

question about weatherization earlier. I mean if this were going to 

be running through CAP agencies I would be here opposing it. 

Mr. WELCH. Right. 

Mr. ENGLER. This is not going to do that. This is going to go to 

private sector. 

Mr. WELCH. Yes, it is private sector. It is private homeowner 

and, Mr. Laseter and Mr. Thaman, does this create hassles for you, 

this program? Sometimes programs come up and they have all 

kinds of strings attached and burdens imposed on you or does this 

allow you to be more successful just by doing what you do but do 

more of it? 

Mr. LASETER. Yes, I think the strength of the HomeStar Coalition was having a broad input from, you know, industry, labor, environmental groups and, you know, national associations and State 

energy officials so a lot of players who have done this for many 

years with a heavy focus on the industry. This program is simple 

for the customer because the consumer gets an instant rebate. It 

is going to be simple for the contractor. They fill out a form to send 

to get their money back and that is one of the reasons this thing 

is going to work. 

Mr. WELCH. Right. 

Mr. THAMAN. Congressman Welch, in my testimony I said that 

it is important that this be simple, it be meaningful and it be direct. I think one of the key things here is homeowner education 

and if we give the private sector an incentive to get out there and 

market the idea and sell the idea I think you are going to get a 

multiplier affect as opposed to having a Government agency try to 

do it. 

Mr. WELCH. Right and, Mr. Pratt, we have got the workforce out 

there that wants to get to work? 

Mr. PRATT. Yes and we have an opportunity to use the existing 

800 homebuilder associations to do training if that is the case. 

Mr. WELCH. OK and, you know, Secretary Zoi, I do know that 

you have heard from these folks and others that simplicity is the 

key here. That partnership between the public and the private 

using what we have, not reinventing something new to do something that needs to be done and we know how to do it. Governor 

Engler suggested speed is of the essence and simplicity is of the essence. My sense is that you are very committed to speed and simplicity, and I just wish you would comment on that. 

Ms. ZOI. Well, absolutely, we and I have spent about half my career in the private sector trying to get things done quickly and 

Government is not always famous for that. This program has been 

designed to utilize and harness the very strong presence and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
82 

knowledge of all of these sector experts that are in the private sector now and to leverage the marketing capability, as I think as Michael just mentioned so we absolutely have this in mind. We all 

need to do this if we can do it quickly and we can do it quickly. 

Mr. WELCH. OK, well, I look forward to working with my colleagues on trying to address whatever suggestions they have to 

make this simpler and more efficient. 

I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great, the gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and as I start we have 

our fine technician working on our thermostat right here perfectly 

timed. Wave to everybody so it is great timing maybe we can include. 

Mr. MARKEY. It is a very old-fashioned thermostat. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is right. We need some Government money 

to do that. 

Let me and it is great to follow my friend and colleague, Peter 

Welch, who has been working very diligently on this. I also find it 

curious when a progressor really takes a free market competitive 

stance. I think what Republicans and conservatives are worried 

about right now is our national debt, all consuming above everything else. In 2009, our budget was $3.2 trillion, our deficit was 

$1.3 trillion and our debt was $12.3 trillion. In 2010, our budget 

was $3.3 trillion, our deficit $1.3 trillion and our debt was $14.5 

trillion. That is debt. This year we got a $3.4 trillion budget, a projected $1.65 trillion deficit and a debt that is going to hover around 

$15.7 trillion so a lot of the concerns that we have over here is how 

will we pay for this and does anything on the panel want to suggest how we are going to do that? 

Ms. ZOI. The President has suggested previously paying for this 

out of TARP, their funds. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And wasn’t the TARP legislation originally passed 

that that would go down to pay down the debt? 

Ms. ZOI. And I guess I would suggest. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Was that what the law says on the TARP funds, 

correct, right now? The answer is yes so that is not an answer. 

That is taking legislation that we had designed to pay down the 

debt as the TARP funds got paid back and now using it to fund 

another program which is not solving the problem of a pay-for. 

Ms. ZOI. I think this is part of a jobs proposal and I think what 

we find ourselves in is that we still, the economy still needs. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So you are not predicting a pay-for for this? 

Ms. ZOI. I think that the Congress should work out with the Administration the best way to pay for this. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK so you want a pay-for for this? 

Ms. ZOI. We want the bill to be passed so that we can get these 

people back to work. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, do you want this paid for or not? 

Ms. ZOI. I think that we would like to. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Or do you want to go into further debt? That is 

the question I mean you are from the Administration. Do you want 

this paid for or do you want us to go and continue debt and deficit 

spending? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
83 

Ms. ZOI. I think we will need to have conversations to work this 

out together. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You know that on the House side we have pay-for 

legislation. Would you think that is important for us to continue to 

abide by our pay-go rules now in the House that this be fully paid 

for? 

Ms. ZOI. I think that is a matter for your consideration. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK, the Administration has no position on whether this should be pay-for or not? 

Ms. ZOI. We would like to work with you to get the bill passed. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK, thank you very much. 

Anyone else want to talk about whether national debt is something to be concerned about? 

Mr. ENGLER. Sure, I will take a piece of this. I mean you have 

got to realize that the Department here is on the spending side. 

You have to, Mr. Orzag and the budgeters in here I guess but from 

the manufacturing perspective there are a number of things that 

we ought to do as a Nation that would be both useful in terms of 

having a growth strategy and I think important to reduce the debt. 

I will throw one where there is $60 billion of exports riding on fixing the export control laws that are antiquated in this country. We 

could export more of our technology goods. We ought to do trade 

policy more effectively and there are a lot of jobs there. I think we 

also need to look at as people go back to work and are working, 

the economy is growing there are actually more taxes then even in 

the ’90s. If we look it was really economic growth that had a big 

contribution as well as fiscal spending restraint that happened and 

I think when you have got the unemployment rate at double digit 

levels where we are today that these kind of programs ought to be 

looked at as how many people go back to work, how many taxes 

they will pay and how that fits in but there is a whole host of other 

things that I would. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes and let me finish with this, Governor Engler. 

I appreciate your position and comments. There is a lot of uncertainty out there in America today, especially in the manufacturing 

sector. Does movement to an energy legislation or climate legislation provide more or less certainty in the manufacturing sector? 

Mr. ENGLER. It is helpful because energy security is very important to manufacturing. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. What about climate? 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, I think it is helpful in showing that there are 

market-oriented solutions that will work. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. What about the increased cost of energy that will 

be passed on to the manufacturing sector? 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, this actually helps to reduce that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No, I am not talking about this. I am talking about 

climate legislation. 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, we have a number of issues with the chairman on when we get to that question and hopefully—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, that is why we have you here. We get a 

chance to ask you about these all-pressing issues. 

Mr. ENGLER. I am happy to spend time on that if you wish, if 

you want to go there. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I know you are. My time has expired. Thank you. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
84 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank you, Governor, you did not know—you did 

not have an answer to my extraneous questions so thank you for 

not having an answer to Mr. Shimkus. You are very consistent and 

you are very consistent in your testimony. 

Mr. ENGLER. I realize who is chairing, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. I know you have an answer to both of them actually but thank you for staying on point here. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow. 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just following up on the theme that has been raised several 

times about how to make this as low-maintenance, as user-friendly 

as possible. What will the customer, the taxpayer, the homeowner 

actually experience? What will the experience be like for the man 

or the woman that we are asking to basically we are trying to get 

to nudge in this direction because as Mr. Welch has pointed out, 

folks are going to have to have some skin in the game and we want 

to give folks an encouragement, a proper encouragement. We don’t 

want to discourage them with something that is bureaucratic, involves a hassle, involves making them think about things that actually try and get in the way of doing what is even in there rational best interest to use a behavioral economic-type approach to this 

problem. Who can describe what the experience is going to be like 

for the customer? What are the things that they get to consider and 

what is it going to be like and especially comparing and contrasting 

this with another approach, let us say a tax credit approach which 

I think has certain advantages but also certain disadvantages in 

terms of encouraging folks to do things right away giving them the 

feedback, the positive feedback right away? Who wants to take a, 

Mr. Laseter, would you like to take a stab at that? 

Mr. LASETER. I am happy to give an answer as a contractor serving customers. 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you. 

Mr. LASETER. When we go in the home today we do proposals 

today as general contractors big and small do every single day in 

America, and under this program we can add a line item that will 

say here is your instant rebate under the HomeStar Program and 

subtract that amount so the customer pays the total minus the instant rebate to us. That is the customer experience. There is not 

a research do I qualify for the tax credit. I have to pay you now 

and go out-of-pocket and I get my tax credit back next year. 

Mr. BARROW. Hopefully. 

Mr. LASETER. Right that, excuse me, is a point of sale from the 

homeowner’s perspective when they are buying or purchasing they 

are getting an instant rebate and that is the difference and what 

will really drive some consumer demand. 

Mr. BARROW. How about for the retailer though, the manufacturer, the folks who are being who are coming up with the materials to be sold and installed? What is the experience like for them? 

Mr. LASETER. Yes, from the perspective of the supply chain after 

that, as a contractor I submit my paperwork to get my instant rebate. That is applied directly to again contractors big and small 

who participate in the program and then we buy through distribution channels that may be at retail. They may be, you know, direct. 

They may be, you know, through distributors that are in the marVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:20 Nov 27, 2012 Jkt 076017 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A017.XXX A017

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
85 

ketplace for these different products and services. So the money, 

you know, just goes all the way up the supply chain that exists 

today. 

Mr. THAMAN. And from an Owens Corning perspective as is the 

case I think of most the manufacturers, you know, the nature of 

our business would not change dramatically in terms of how we invoice or get reimbursed by our customers. Hopefully, it would 

change because there would be more demand and obviously with 

our distinctive pink brand and our brand name we talk to homeowners all the time. We talk to retailers all the time. I think you 

would expect companies like ours to be very aggressive about helping promote these ideas and get homeowners to understand that 

for a limited time, they have an opportunity to do something good 

for their home, good for their energy bill and good for the environment. 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of letting some others have some of the time remaining, I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great, we thank the gentleman. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Griffith. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I am sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry 

I was late coming back in but the suppliers of the windows and 

other materials, those we heard that they were going to be mostly 

American manufacturers and is there any way to ensure what percentage that might be or is that germane? Is that an important 

question? 

Mr. THAMAN. Well, you know, I can start by talking about the 

insulation industry. I mean insulation is kind of uniquely U.S. centric because it is a very lightweight, low value product and so you 

can’t ship it very far. So the nature of the product is we make fiberglass insulation; our input materials are sand. Our sand suppliers 

and our bag suppliers are very close by to us. We manufacture 

close to the market. Our trucking firms are very close to us. Our 

contractors live in the communities in which they install. So we see 

a supply chain that begins and ends right in the United States 

without any need for any intervention to say this needs to be U.S.- 

based. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you. 

Mr. ENGLER. Specifically on windows, the window and door manufacturers were in town this week and all over the Capitol, but 

that again is the kind of product given its weight, it is actually 

being produced in many, many States close to the markets. It is 

not something that you ship from across the world here for the domestic door-window, windows in particular. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you. I agree completely. Where are the 

most obvious areas for abuse of this program? Would it be in the 

contractor? Would it be in the invoicing? Is there any competition 

for a customer to get a second bid on the cost? How does that work? 

Ms. ZOI. Well, what we intend to set up is a system that does 

not allow rebates or double rebates so again what the limiting factor will be one measure, one eligible measure per address and the 

system, once that gets admitted we won’t accept double claims so 

again you can design that with modern IT and not allow, I mean 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
86 

just as if you are online shopping and you haven’t filled out a field 

you get a little red signal. It is like uh-oh, you know, 234 Main 

Street has already gotten an official water heater through this program. They can’t do it so again, we are going to set up a system 

that doesn’t allow that. 

Mr. LASETER. And if I may, from a customer’s perspective, this 

is a market-based program. The customer can shop as many general contractors as they would like to shop to get the best price before they decide to do the home improvement so again we think the 

strength of the program is it is so market-based. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I appreciate those answers and they are comforting and I appreciate that. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great, the gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Capps. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and before I begin, may 

I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record two statements 

each in favor of the HomeStar and Lead Renovation Rule? 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection, they will be included. 

Mrs. CAPPS. One is from the Labors International Union of North 

America and the other is from the American Public Health Association. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great, without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you very much. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, in 1992, this committee held hearings on a serious problem, hundreds of thousands of children being 

harmed by exposure to lead which damages the development of the 

brain and nervous system. This committee took action and passed 

the Lead Exposure Reduction Act on a bipartisan vote of 39 to 4. 

That legislation reduced lead hazards in a number of ways including by requiring EPA to identify lead-safe remodeling and renovation practices and to make sure that contractors were trained in 

these lead-safe practices. Now, almost 20 years later, EPA has developed these commonsense rules and they will finally go into effect 

next month. 

Now, Mr. Pratt, you have suggested in your testimony that these 

long, overdue projections for children’s health should be further delayed in conjunction with the HomeStar Program and I find this 

particularly very troubling. I wonder if you are aware that the EPA 

and Centers for Disease Control estimate that one million American children are exposed to harmful levels of lead that damage the 

development of their brains and nervous systems, often irreparably? 

Mr. PRATT. Yes, the point that I was trying to make was that 

there was 14,000 contractors. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Let me get to that in a second but thank you. Are 

you aware that the first year it is in effect, the lead rule is expected to shield 1.4 million children under the age of six from hazardous lead dust? 

Mr. PRATT. Yes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Pratt, your testimony states that EPA has not 

certified enough contractors to comply with the Lead Renovation 

Rule and your testimony asserts that fewer than 14,000 contractors 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
87 

have been trained to date. Mr. Pratt, I understand that the committee’s desk spoke with EPA yesterday. Did you know that based 

on updated information, the EPA estimates that 50,000 individuals 

have now been trained to date at more than 3,100 courses. Are you 

aware that EPA estimates that at least 100,000 individuals will be 

trained by the time the rule goes into effect next month? 

Mr. PRATT. No, I was not but I would modify my written testimony if that is what is needed. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. Let me just wind up then. Thank you. 

Your testimony states that there are no training providers in several States and I want to clarify that many of the training providers do travel from State to State and these traveling providers 

have traveled to States that do not have fixed site trainers. For example, despite the absence of a fixed site training entity, hundreds 

of renovators have been trained in Louisiana already and I am 

going to close by just saying, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. You have 2 minutes left. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I know but I want to make a statement. I appreciate 

Mr. Pratt’s acknowledgement that maybe we need to update, you 

know, the numbers that we have according to the latest figures 

that we were able to get but I for one strongly oppose the notion 

of delaying this Lead Rule. I don’t believe it is right and I don’t 

believe it is necessary. I believe taxpayer dollars shouldn’t go to, 

should not go to projects that permanently damage children and I 

don’t accept that we need to sacrifice our kids’ health in order to 

put people back to work and save energy and with that I yield back 

my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentlelady. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas. Oh, yes, I think 

it is the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Zoi, one of the little magazines that we all get up here 

all the time last week had some numbers from your Department 

about what had been received in Stimulus funds and what had actually been spent. Presumably, that was public information that 

was put out by the Department of Energy. How have you done on 

spending the money that you got from the Stimulus Bill last year? 

Ms. ZOI. The—we are in a really good spot now. We are ramping 

up. Some of the shovel-ready projects took a little longer to get the 

shovels in the ground based in part because of the design of the 

program and the design of the statute. Just to take a few that are 

under my portfolio, the Weatherization Assistance Program now. 

Mr. MARKEY. Ms. Zoi, can I just, yes, thank you. 

Ms. ZOI. How about that? 

Mr. MARKEY. Good. 

Ms. ZOI. The Weatherization Assistance Program now is at nearly at its full ramp rate of about 20 to 25,000 homes a month. The 

State Energy Program, that is a $3.2 billion program where the 

money was obligated to the States at the end of September, the 

structure of the and a third, fully a third of the money, $1 billion 

is out in awards. 

Mr. BURGESS. Yes, let me, I hate to interrupt but obviously my 

time is limited. The chairman is very strict with me. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
88 

Mr. MARKEY. Not today, whatever you want. We will just be 

open-minded. 

Mr. BURGESS. But $823 million has been spent as of March 4 fig- ures that were available of the appropriated $25 billion and we 

have got a bill in front of us that has essentially a blank check 

written in the back and we appropriate such sums as are necessary. Why would you need any additional money at all when you 

have $25 billion waiting to be used? 

Ms. ZOI. We have. 

Mr. BURGESS. Why not use that money first before coming and 

asking as they were described yesterday, the feckless appropriators, for an additional $6 billion. 

Ms. ZOI. The program, the programs have obligated I think $25 

billion of the $36 billion that came to the Department of Energy 

so that is all either under contract out at the State level workers 

have been hired. The figures that show up as spent don’t show up 

as spent in the Federal system until the Federal Government gets 

invoiced by the grantee and in many cases it is a State or it is a 

private, it is a university or it is a private company so the actual 

costing figures which is in everyday parlance it is money spent, 

that lags in terms of actually the work being done. There are so 

we do not have available to use whatever number of billions of dollars because the vast majority of that has already been obligated 

to good projects that are out in the field creating jobs right now. 

Mr. BURGESS. The Stimulus Bill was passed in February with a 

great deal of rapidity without time to read the bill because it was 

so important to get the money out there but now here we are 13 

months later and only a small portion of the monies that you had 

available has actually been delivered to projects that are putting 

people back to work. How do we have confidence that providing additional money to your Department is going to be utilized any more 

efficiently then the large amount of money that you already received? 

Ms. ZOI. Well again, first of all, there are thousands of jobs that 

have been created and that money is already being put to work so 

for the State Energy Program for example, $1 billion is already 

under contract at the State level creating jobs. Now, those States 

have not invoiced the Federal Government so it is not showing up 

as spent but the work is getting done. Private sector people and 

State people have been hired to get that work done. Secondly, the 

structure of this program is going to move even more quickly I 

would guess depending on what the market demanded then Cash 

for Clunkers did and Cash for Clunkers. 

Mr. BURGESS. Oh, please don’t mention Cash for Clunkers in this 

committee. 

Ms. ZOI. All right but to your point is there a spending bottleneck. 

Mr. BURGESS. That is not a good metric. 

Ms. ZOI. The structure of the program. 

Mr. BURGESS. Listen, none of us are against energy efficiency but 

this should be driven by the market. I know of two electric companies back in my district, one which is providing a credit to homeowners if they want to put solar equipment on their homes. Another which is really a forward-leaning project will allow homeVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:20 Nov 27, 2012 Jkt 076017 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A017.XXX A017

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
89 

owners to rent the equipment. The electricity company is providing 

the capital and the homeowner rents the equipment and sells the 

electricity back because we do have net metering in Texas. Those 

are great programs. This is something that should sell itself. We 

shouldn’t have to go in debt billions of more dollars to foreign countries in order for these programs to happen because they are a good 

idea. People want to do this and when they find out the amount 

of money, I have no quarrel with people putting solar panels on 

their roof. I think in Texas it makes a lot of sense. We primarily 

use a lot of electricity during the summertime. We need our air 

conditioners. I am all for putting lots of solar panels on lots of roofs 

and let us not build another coal fire plant. I think that is a good 

idea but it sells itself. Why are we—is it necessary to pump money 

into what seems to be a fairly inefficient, bureaucratic pipeline that 

takes 13 months to get deliverables out to the other side? It seems 

like the marketplace could move much more rapidly on this. That 

is just an observation. One other thing in the newspapers in Texas, 

the business section of the Dallas Morning News a few weeks ago 

detailed this large wind farm that was going to go into west Texas 

with Stimulus money and they were buying Chinese windmills. 

Now, what is up with that? We have got a windmill blade manufacturer in Gainesville, Texas. Why didn’t we buy American blades for 

that? 

Ms. ZOI. Well, we haven’t seen that, the proposal for that project. 

The 1603 Program I think to which you are referring again has created already 10,000 construction jobs, 2,000 ongoing jobs. 

Mr. BURGESS. In China. 

Ms. ZOI. No, no, in the United States. Those jobs are in the 

United States. The wind and I agree with you, the wind blade manufacturing capability has grown significantly. A few years ago the 

wind industry, the domestic contract in the wind industry was 

probably about 25 to 35 percent. It is now because of all the work 

that is being done it is now over 53 percent and with the 48C Program that we talked about a little earlier in this hearing, we are 

investing in the ability to manufacture gear boxes. At the moment, 

wind gear boxes are not manufactured in the United States because we haven’t had policies to support it but all of that is coming. 

We are on a trend line here to rebuild and catalyze the renewable 

energy industry that is incredibly important for creating jobs across 

this country. 

Mr. BURGESS. I know in the interest of time, let us get you that 

article. It was in the business section of the Dallas Morning News 

last month and I would like to if you don’t mind submit that to you 

and see if we can get your comments about what was contained 

within that article. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. I will yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman very much and the Dallas 

Morning News is actually going to host about 25,000 people at the 

Wind Convention in a couple more months. 

Mr. BURGESS. There is a lot of money in that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well there is and they are turning it into money 

so let me turn now and recognize the gentleman from California, 

Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
90 

I would like to just address the issue that the gentleman from 

Texas raised. I spent my career developing wind energy technology 

only to see that technology go overseas because there wasn’t sufficient support in this country so the jobs that we should have been 

creating are being created in China. They are being created in Germany because they are putting windmills in that country like crazy 

and we need to change that and create those jobs here. 

Back to the question at hand, my district has sections that are 

very hard hit by the economy and what I would like to see is some 

mechanism in this legislation or this program that would help implement this sort of process in hard hit areas. My concern is that 

people that are marginal economically aren’t going to be interested 

in investing $1,500 without some sort of incentive that makes it 

possible, additional training, for example, or other methods to get 

those homes that probably need it more than any other homes to 

be insulated and become more efficient. Do you have any suggestions or ideas that would be beneficial in that light? I will let the 

Secretary. 

Ms. ZOI. We will quickly. One of the terrific things about the bill 

is that there is a provision for financing, local financing and there 

are a variety of ways to provide finance to make it possible for folks 

who do not have that money in their bank account to be able to 

take advantage of this and the whole theory is that you borrow a 

little bit of money but the savings on you energy bills will allow 

that to be paid back. So again I would commend that provision of 

the bill in particular. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK, Mr. Pratt. 

Mr. PRATT. The training program that HBI has come up with has 

trained disadvantaged people definitely in the Weatherization Program. I have instructed hundreds of people on the installation of 

weatherization. Most of those people are disadvantaged in some variety to the point where people ask me if they can return the bottles to get the bus ride so they can come back the next day. It is 

very imperative that this program not necessarily just be a certification program where you certify contractors that you are actually 

specing the weatherization training that is going on instead just 

the specific certification that someone gets from it. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, that is a good point. A concern I have is 

that if there is a program that gets ramped up too quickly there 

won’t be enough people out there to know how to do what they 

need to do. Walking into a house and making an assessment of 

what needs to happen to make the house more efficient, it is not 

rocket science necessarily but it needs training and it needs certification. Are we going to be able to ramp up enough people to meet 

those needs if this program moves forward? 

Mr. PRATT. This program in front of you, this program here, not 

necessarily the HomeStar Program in itself but this program right 

here specs the level of training that is designed for the sixth, seventh, eighth-grader level of knowledge to be able to confer and install the products. That is what it was designed for as workforce 

training, not just a certification program. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Sure. 

Mr. LASETER. And I am sorry, the certification programs that are 

currently in the bill, they also have training outlets and back 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
91 

where the President announced some of the details that Savannah 

Technical Community College, there are training outlets like that 

everywhere where these kind of rigorous training people will receive that gives them the skills they need to actually get their certification so the additional certifications can happen quickly. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. 

Mr. ENGLER. The only thing I would add to that is that, you 

know, as governor for 12 years I worked in a lot of hard hit areas. 

I currently also serve on the N.E. Casey Foundation Board so we 

work with communities that are hard hit. When we start reducing 

the unemployment rate, you should start with the people who were 

most recently were detached from the workforce and you work your 

way down. Those that are hardest hit who haven’t worked in 10 

years will be the last to be hired and they are the ones that need 

the very low minimum wage or the differential wage to be hired 

to get some connection. That was the way it worked for Welfare Reform and sometimes we try to do policy to get the hardest possible 

person to work first and that is just expensive and wasteful and 

it will fail. In this case, we have got millions of Americans who had 

jobs who aren’t working. They can go right back to work. They are 

the ones you train first and as we get the economy moving, there 

are more resources left to try to deal with the chronic situations 

that you have just described and as far as investing, the other policy decision that is in this bill which I think the committee has 

made I hope is that energy savings are energy savings and when 

we reduce kilowatt consumption, wherever we save that kilowatt, 

MacKenzie’s argument was get the most cost-effective savings first. 

Harvest, said Secretary Chu, has said the fruit on the ground or 

the low-hanging fruit first before we get on the tall ladder and try 

to reach the top of the tree and I think this is saying let us get 

it where we can find it and so I worry, you know, and I realize I 

don’t have to get elected anymore but I worry less about where we 

get it then how much we can get in terms of kilowatt savings. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great, the gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like first 

to ask unanimous consent to have a statement by the National Association of Realtors inserted in the record outlining their position 

on this legislation. Mr. Chairman, a unanimous consent. 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. STEARNS. All right, thanks and I think you have a copy and 

you have seen it before. 

Ms. Zoi, a question always comes up. Sometimes a bill passes 

and there becomes technical language that changes everything. 

Can you say today categorically that there will be no labeling requirement that would be part of this bill if it passed? Do you feel 

comfortable saying that there would be no labeling? 

Ms. ZOI. Can you tease that out for me, please? 

Mr. STEARNS. Yes, I think the problem would be is like in the 

cap and trade there was a portion of the bill that actually put a 

label on the house to say that it was not complying with energy efVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:20 Nov 27, 2012 Jkt 076017 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A017.XXX A017

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
92 

ficient requirements. It had different things and it was given in a 

rating and so this label created in the minds of the homeowner 

that one, his home was worth less and in the person who was buying it, it was discounted so you get this sort of a stigma attached 

to a house or a property. So we are concerned that if this bill 

passes that there would be some kind of understanding by you and 

your people in the Administration that you would put a label on 

a house. So I am hoping that you will say today that there will be 

no labeling requirement. 

Ms. ZOI. I don’t think that the nature of this bill is about that. 

Mr. STEARNS. So your answer is? 

Ms. ZOI. It is a voluntary program where people go and take advantage of energy efficient technology as they get installed in their 

home. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK, so your answer is no, for the record. OK, the 

other thing I have a question for you in the bill the White House 

indicates that the number of homes improved under the HomeStar 

Program could be three million. I just flipped through here in the 

notebook they gave me and it appears that when you went to 

weatherize a home that in 1 year they got a maximum across all 

50 States was 125,000 is all. How did you come up with—what is 

the source of that estimate that you will get three million when the 

facts just for weatherization was only 125,000? 

Ms. ZOI. Yes, I think that this is a different sort of program so 

the calculations are done based on projecting what would be the average rebate that a consumer would take advantage of? How big 

is the pot of money available for Silver Star rebates and Gold Star 

rebates? How big do we, what is the average rebate amount and 

that is the number of transactions that we have got so if indeed 

again the Senate version has nominated, you know, $3 billion or 

so for the Silver Star Program, you figure each house will take advantage of, you know, one measure or 1.2 measures like 1.2 children, then you just do that math. So you are able to reach that 

many more homes then the Weatherization Assistance Project 

which is what I think you are referring to where they go and do 

kind of a whole home retrofit for low-income folks up to the tune 

of anywhere between $4,500 and $6,500 per home. The average investment per home and with this is likely to be lower therefore, 

more homes will get done. 

Mr. STEARNS. My colleague, Mr. Shimkus, had mentioned how 

are we going to pay for this. The President has talked about freezing a very small portion of the discretionary spending. Perhaps, an 

across the board spending freeze would help pay for this or even 

some kind of freezing with Government employees. We have seen 

a lot of articles recently about everybody is taking a sacrifice but 

not necessarily Government employees and so that is possibly one 

way to help pay for this. The other thing I am concerned about is 

that the way you have it in this Rebate Program it might be more 

effective and shall we say less bureaucratic that you wouldn’t have 

to use all these formulas if you had a tax credit and I think this 

had been brought up before, are you receptive to a tax credit rather 

than a rebate? 

Ms. ZOI. Well, there is an existing. 

Mr. STEARNS. Just yes or no. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
93 

Ms. ZOI. There is an existing tax credit and we have an opportunity now to harmonize job creation immediately with energy savings for families so I think this program will have an immediate 

catalyzation of a big part of the sector. 

Mr. STEARNS. Let me read this other question, it is a little long. 

The bill doesn’t allow taxpayers to receive both an energy efficient, 

that is Section 25C, tax credit and a rebate. How will you know 

whether a Section 25C tax credit has been applied for regarding a 

HomeStar product? Is the Department of Energy going to check the 

IRS records? Is the IRS going to check the DOE records? Are we 

just going to assume that no one would be so nefarious or simply 

confused as to claim a credit for an item for which a rebate was 

received? 

Ms. ZOI. I think we would never assume Americans would be nefarious. 

Mr. STEARNS. That is a safe answer. 

Ms. ZOI. But no, what happens is this is an instantaneous pointof-sale rebate. Those records would then be provided to the IRS 

plus it would be tax fraud if taxpayers tried to apply for both so 

we would have the records and then the IRS, we would provide our 

records to the IRS. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your questions. I assume as we go around that you as the chairman will probably find 

a way to pay for this so that we don’t add to the deficit so I would 

be curious—perhaps you might enlighten us how we are going to 

pay for this. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, in your own personal instance it will probably 

be your winnings from the NCAA pool that you just filled out. OK, 

I think that you will be able to make perhaps $300 up. 

Mr. STEARNS. It won’t be that much. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I would like to submit for the record testimony from Steve Nadell 

from the Americans for Energy Efficient Economy that outlines the 

technical specifications in HomeStar as well as the job numbers. 

Without objection, so included. 

[The information was unavailable at the time of printing.] 

Mr. MARKEY. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. Thanks for the Coalition’s work on that. 

This is just has got such fantastic upside for us both short term 

and long term. We really appreciate all of your efforts. Congratulations, Governor Engler. The first lithium ion manufacturing plant 

in America is going to go into Michigan, in Holland, Michigan because of the Stimulus Bill. We are going to have to give you some 

credit for that somewhere along the line, and thanks to Mr. Welch 

for his leadership on this issue. 

I want to ask a couple of questions about those who might be 

skeptical a little bit about this proposal. I am really not but I 

would like you to address some concerns that have been raised. 

The first one about having the division between silver and gold in 

general, silver being a compensation system for specific entities, 

and gold being more performance-based. So I guess my first question I have is why shouldn’t—what will we say to those who think 

everything should be performance-based and we shouldn’t have a 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
94 

dollar of taxpayer money invested until we have a specific performance of X percentage for every single house? 

Mr. THAMAN. I would be happy to address that. In my testimony 

I referenced the MacKenzie Study and I think others on this panel 

did also which looked at carbon emissions and also energy efficiency and rated insulation which is the product we manufacture 

as the most energy efficient. One of the things you need to understand in rankings like that is cost of inspections and cost of audits 

are not factored into that analysis so the assumption, which I think 

is a good assumption, given our contractor base and the people we 

work with is that good, honest, hardworking people are going to install products correctly and that products installed correctly for 

their intended use save energy, and we know that that is the case 

with the insulation products that we manufacture. If we get too 

prescriptive in terms of specifying inspections and audits as a part 

of trying to make the economics of this program work, you actually 

destroy the economics of the products that save energy because of 

the additional cost so I think this bill sought to find a balance between Silver Star-type products which are known to save energy 

for sure, and then Gold Star-type projects where an inspector can 

come in and come out with a whole house approach to improving 

the energy efficiency of the home. 

Mr. LASETER. And if I may add on the Gold Star side as being 

a home performance contractor ourselves, these are proven technologies, proven models. We install many of these same proven 

measures. In fact, at our company we are so certain that we actually provide a whole home energy savings limited guarantee for the 

homeowner where we guarantee the first year energy savings so 

one of the beauties in the balance is proven technologies immediately in the marketplace. 

Mr. INSLEE. So I just did my observation. These are proven technologies. We have good data about them about their effectiveness 

however we have to realize there will be some Americans who don’t 

install them perfectly. They won’t always work perfectly when they 

are installed but my belief is the cost of trying to assess perfection 

is going to be greater than the loss of imperfection of those who 

don’t, who have two thumbs and don’t do the installation exactly 

perfectly. That is my sort of feeling about this and that is why I 

think this is actually a pretty good balance that you have struck. 

Second question, the National Association of Homebuilders had 

asked to recognize the Homebuilders Institute as the certifying or 

a certifying, I am not sure which, entity for certifying workforces. 

That entity was not included. Is there a reason for that and what 

should we be thinking about the certifying agencies? 

Ms. ZOI. I can say from the Department of Energy’s perspective 

we are quite interested and excited to have all qualified certifications be part of this thing and we have suggested that the Secretary has the latitude to add more as more rating schemes and 

qualifications schemes become available but we are quite open to 

the HBI being part of this. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, I appreciate that. 

Just one comment, I was reading Dr. Chu’s testimony in some 

blog somewhere last night about efficiency. I said this before but 

I want to reiterate this, I hope you will unleash him in the coming 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
95 

weeks particularly while the U.S. Senate is considering energy legislation to really share what he knows about this field particularly 

with the other chamber because it is incredibly powerful and I hope 

that you will allow him to live in the U.S. Senate in the next several weeks. We need a 101st senator and it should be one who 

knows the physics and, you know, could be a second Nobel Prize 

out there so I hope he is there. Thanks very much. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Well, we thank all of you for being here and here is what we are 

going to do. We are going to give each one of you your 1 minute. 

Give us your best shot here in 1 minute. What is it that you want 

this committee to do? A lot of people think that, you know, energy 

conservation is like watching grass grow. How can that be exciting, 

you know? How can that be interesting? How can that be good for 

our country? How can that be the smart way of going and so we 

will give each one of you a minute to kind of summarize it why the 

members of this committee, if they were all sitting here, would 

know why this is such an exciting subject and why they should, 

you know, invest the time to understand it and to explain it to the 

American people. So we will begin with you, Mr. Pratt, and we will 

go in reverse order of the opening statements so that we can have 

each of you make your case to the American people. 

Mr. PRATT. Well, as an experienced trainer, as someone who has 

trained workforce in this venue, I feel as though that opening up 

the marketplace to having multiple training organizations inside 

this program allowing disadvantaged people to go through and get 

training, I do believe that the existing construction network although it has a lot of training still needs to be reinforced with a 

lot of training. My encouragement is that we don’t necessarily tie 

this program to a certification program, that we have multiple certification programs which are already existing out there and incorporate into the program. 

Mr. MARKEY. All right, can you up the excitement level, Mr. 

Thaman, in your concluding 1 minute? 

Mr. THAMAN. I will do my best, Chairman Markey. You know, we 

would say as we have all said that employment is very far down 

in the construction industry. We do not believe the economy is out 

of the woods and we do think that it is important that this group 

take action to try to stimulate the economy and create additional 

jobs in our sector. People are trained. They are ready to come back 

onto the job. We are ready to employ them if there were demand. 

Creating demand for energy efficiency products is a great idea. It 

gets a hard hit part of the economy back to work. It creates energy 

savings and money in the pocket of consumers. It reduces energy 

dependence. It reduces energy imports. It increases energy security 

and it is one of the few energy policy moves that we have that is 

actually capital creating as opposed to capital destroying because 

it actually creates savings and creates consumption. We think a 

simple, meaningful and direct incentive to homeowners to improve 

the energy efficiency of their home is good policy and we support 

it. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great, thank you, Mr. Thaman. 

Governor Engler. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
96 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, just following on Mr. Thaman’s beautiful remarks, it is a win for jobs. It is a win for energy efficiency. It is 

a win for the overall American economy and then it ought to be followed up the work on this HomeStar legislation with picking up 

the pace on initiatives the President has talked about that all can 

support. We need to get these transmission lines built in this country and rebuilt. That is free energy. It is being generated but lost 

in transmission. That is a simple revenue bond. We don’t need Government help to do that. We just need to clean up the process and 

put the EPA in the closet so we don’t need NEPA on existing 

rights-of-ways. There are already power lines. Let us build the new 

ones. Let us get that done. Let us get the nuclear power industry 

going. To Mr. Burgess’ point earlier, the supplier base was largely 

driven out because we weren’t doing anything in a lot of these 

areas and we better start building nuclear power plants, we will 

get that base back here so the whole host of these kinds of things 

that in the energy space, all of which put Americans to work and 

reduce the emissions and reduce the energy intensity of the country. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Governor Engler, very much. 

Mr. Laseter. 

Mr. LASETER. Yes, sir, Chairman Markey, I will start with two 

words, granite countertops, OK, that is exciting. People when they 

can in this economy when they can often get the money to do a 

home improvement. 

Mr. MARKEY. If they were remaking the movie, ‘‘The Graduate’’ 

today, they wouldn’t be saying plastic. They would be saying granite countertops. 

Mr. LASETER. When people have the money to do home improvement they start thinking granite countertops. This program will 

put energy efficiency on sale for every American household so instead of thinking granite countertops, they will think energy efficiency and that is the reason this program will work. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great, thank you, Mr. Laseter. 

Ms. ZOI. I like that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Can you move in that microphone just a little bit 

closer? 

Ms. ZOI. I think we have a moment to create speed and scale in 

the efficiency sector. I don’t know whether who has been at this 

longer, Chairman Markey or me but we have been trying to make 

energy efficiency sexy for a long time. The truth is though last year 

only 40,000 non-low-income retrofits were done in this country and 

it sounds like one of them was done in Mr. Burgess’ house. What 

we need to do is create speed and scale, leverage the private sector. 

We have an alignment here that is unprecedented with private sector players, Government players, Federal players, State players to 

stand this up so that we can get out of this and having building 

tune-ups becomes normal business for Americans going forward. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Secretary Zoi, as well. 

Oh sure, the gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. BURGESS. My home was not a retrofit. It was new construction. It was all paid for with duly earned, after-tax dollars. No Federal program was involved. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
97 

Mr. MARKEY. You know what? You were right but too soon for 

this program, OK if you had just waited 40 years. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. You too could have. 

Mr. ENGLER. Here is the problem though, Congressman, in your 

district you will have to pay for a new power plant if everybody 

else doesn’t get their homes cleaned up because the energy will run 

out some day and I want to avoid that. That is cost avoidance. 

Mr. BURGESS. And, Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, let me 

have a try at the 1 minute let us make efficiency appealing. Where 

else could you get Ed Markey, Mike Burgess and Roscoe Bartlett 

on the same page? Energy efficiency is the common ground whether you are worried about global warming, national security or peak 

oil. This is where all of those come together and no one on this 

committee, regardless of which side of the dais they sit on can really make a coherent argument in favor of wasting energy. 

Mr. MARKEY. I hope it would actually be we would agree that we 

don’t want Notre Dame to win the NCAA Tournament, OK. There 

Texas and Boston College is going to agree on that, OK. 

Mr. BURGESS. The University of North Texas actually is in. 

Mr. MARKEY. University of North Texas. 

Mr. BURGESS. And they play in just an hour’s time so go Mean 

Green. 

Mr. MARKEY. All right, well, you know, I might change mine. I 

have been filling out my NCAA Tournament bracket up here. I 

might go to North Texas and pick that now. 

So here we are. We have this great opportunity to as we know, 

to instead of generating more megawatts to have negawatts. To 

have the watts never have to be manufactured, constructed, built 

in the first place and as Governor Engler said, that saves everybody money. It costs a lot of money to build one of these power 

plants and your bills are lower. There are jobs created and helping 

people save the money, and we back out energy that we otherwise 

would have imported, home heating oil or have in the construction 

of power plants across the country. 

So it is win-win-win as Mr. Laseter said. It is working smarter, 

not harder. My mother always used to say that to me. Eddie, work 

smarter, not harder, she would always say it after she said she was 

going to donate my brain to Harvard Medical School as a completely unused human organ, OK. So I think this is the kind of program she was talking about, working smarter, not harder. When I 

was the chairman of the energy subcommittee here back in 1985 

and ’86 and I authored the Appliance Efficiency Act for refrigerators, stoves, you name it all the way down the line, well, there 

are scores of power plants that never had to be built because refrigerators are now twice as efficient as they were because of that law 

back in 1986. So you just think of every home with a refrigerator 

twice as efficient or stove or you go all the way down the line. 

So that is how we are thinking here. We are thinking, you know, 

there has to be a way in which we not just incentivize the importation of more oil from OPEC which is half of our trade deficit, by 

the way. Half of our trade deficit is importing oil. Now, that can’t 

be a good idea given where a lot of those revenues then get spent 

against the interest of our country, it affects our economy. Here we 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
98 

have a homegrown industry. We have companies. We have contractors who are ready to go with materials made in America, with contractors who live here in America and with homeowners here in 

America who will be the beneficiaries. So that is about the best picture you can put on this. It is not made by OPEC and it is not 

made in China, made in the USA for people in the USA, installed 

by people in the USA and sold by people in the USA. 

So it seems to me that of all the tax programs that we have got 

on the books, this is one that will work magic on our economy and 

the more that we can spread this ethic, this idea of working smarter, not harder in terms of how we generate electricity in our country is the better off we are going to be, and a perfect example again 

is this wind program. Last year, 10,000 new megawatts of wind installed in the United States so if you think of a nuclear power 

plant as 1,000 megawatts, 10,000 new megawatts installed in our 

country last year and half, 500 new megawatts of solar installed 

in the United States last year. That would be like half a nuclear 

power plant. Well, these are big numbers. As Secretary Zoi pointed 

out, that is 10,000 new jobs here in the United States and the good 

news is that as she pointed out is that just 3 years ago, 4 years 

ago, 25 percent of the jobs in the wind sector were in the United 

States, 75 percent overseas. Because of the Stimulus Program, we 

now have it up to 53 percent of the jobs and the industry and testimony last week said that their goal by the end of the Stimulus Program is over 70 to 75 percent of the wind jobs will be totally generated here in the United States. 

OK, so just changing the way in which we view how we produce 

energy or don’t produce energy by installing insulation, by installing smarter, new devices that are made here in the United States, 

sold here in the United States, installed here in the United States. 

That is the way we have to view this and then we dramatically reduce the greenhouse gases by doing it all here in our country. We 

create new jobs and we save on the imported energy that we have 

to bring into our country. 

So it is win-win-win, win-win-win, win-win-win. This is something that should generate incredible enthusiasm from our members, you know. The reporting table should over here be excited at 

this smart new plan that is being put in place and so our job is 

going to be to get out there to sell this to lift it up along with these 

other energy technologies that are coming along here. Made in 

America as the governor said, you know, that should be our single 

most important objective this year to begin to put in place a program that will sustain us in the long run. 

So what we would like to do, Mr. Welch, Mr. Waxman and I is 

work with the Minority, work with all parties that are concerned 

about this issue so that we can put it on a fast track and we put 

it in place in a way that will give the benefits to people out there 

and give hope that new jobs will be created. And as you said, governor, not in 60 days, not in 90 days, you know, but as soon as possible. Fast track this process. Put that gold star up there and 

again, I think we should try to put a gold star. You know, we label 

children with a gold star. We say here are the students who are 

doing the best work, you know. We label things in America. We 

have honor rolls that we want to have put in the newspaper, you 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
99 

know. We don’t want to stigmatize people who aren’t on the honor 

roll but we want to honor the people on the honor roll don’t we? 

Don’t we want to let people know who is doing the best work? Don’t 

we want to let people know who are the gold star students and the 

silver star students? It begins in the first grade. 

I think Americans are ready for this. Maybe we have too many 

trophies. Maybe it is Lake Woebegone, you know, everyone is above 

average but everyone is not above average. We need measurements. We need to have America be number one looking over its 

shoulder at number two and three in the world in this sector, OK 

because we will then be manufacturing the jobs. We will then be 

producing the work opportunities in the years ahead for all those 

workers in our country. 

We thank you all. We want to work closely with you in the next 

couple of weeks so that we produce the best possible bill. So stay 

close to the subcommittee. We need you to call us, talk to us, you 

know, visit us and let us know how we can frame this because we 

have some ideas how to change it. I know you might too and I 

think if we all work together, we will be able to produce the best 

possible bill. Thank you. With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
100 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 108 here 76017A.050

Opening Statement ofthe Honorable Joe Barton 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Hearing Entitled "Home 

Star: Job Creation through Home Efficiency Retrofits" 

March 18, 2010 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing to examine this draft 

legislation. 

Like nearly every idea proposed by the Obama Administration these 

days, the selling pOint for this one is supposed to be jobs, jobs, jobs. I 

believe that government does not create jobs - businesses do. Over the 

past year, we have seen government attempt to influence nearly every 

sector of our economy with the injection of enormous sums of money 

from taxpayers in the name of job creation: They say cap-and-trade 

will, quote, "create millions of jobs." Speaker Pelosi says health care 

reform will, quote, "immediately create 400,000 jobs." Remember 

when the White House said the stimulus bill would, quote, "keep 

unemployment below 8 percent"? The list goes on and on, Mr. 

Chairman. 
101 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 109 here 76017A.051

Now we have another jobs-jobs-jobs program that costs a ton of money 

with as much prospect for actual job creation as those other, earlier 

jobs-jobs-jobs programs from the Administration. 

This legislation, the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act, is better known as 

Cash for Caulkers, as it is supposed to apply the principles of the Cashfor-Clunkers program to encourage energy savings at home. While Cash 

for Clunkers was a straight-forward program promoting new car sales, 

today's draft legislation is much more expensive and vastly more 

complex. The Department of Transportation drew fair criticism for 

how it handled Cash for Clunkers after the agency was completely 

overwhelmed by the workload. While I supported the Cash for Clunkers 

program, I am concerned that some of the practical challenges DOT has 

had in implementing that program could be a prelude to what will 

unfold if Home Star becomes law. 

They say Home Star will create jobs by stimulating demand for energyefficient home retrofits. Energy efficiency is a good idea, and I know 

that people can save money through well-chosen energy-efficiency 

2 
102 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 110 here 76017A.052

investments. But before we proceed, there are issues in this bill that I 

feel must be addressed. 

The premise of this proposed program sounds plausible, especially with 

its catchy and familiar-sounding nickname. But instead of talking about 

one product and one factor - cars and miles per gallon - we are talking 

about dozens of household installation and retrofitting projects with 

myriad requirements, arbitrary product inclusions and exclusions, and 

significant funds channeled through DOE. Once again, as with so many 

bills before this Committee lately, the government will be expanding its 

ranks, deciding who gets billions of taxpayer dollars, and picking 

winners and losers. This bill seeks not only to choose winning 

technologies, but it also aims to pick winners and losers in the 

workforce by deciding who can receive the subsidies. 

Second, I have concerns about DOE's ability to handle a second even 

larger and more ambitious weatherization program. DOE's recent 

Inspector General report highlighting problems with its $5 billion 

Recovery Act Weatherization program highlights this point. Less than 5 

percent of the nearly $5 billion authorized in the stimulus bill for 

3 
103 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 111 here 76017A.053

weatherization projects has actually been used by states to weatherize 

homes. Last year, the DOE weatherization program was expected to be 

"shovel-ready" and to create thousands of jobs almost immediately. But 

we have hardly anything to show for it yet. 

Third, while we're talking about costs, we should consider the cost 

language currently in the text. This bill, unlike its Senate counterpart, 

authorizes "such sums as may be necessary." Everybody here 

understands the words "such sums" means it's a blank check, and I'm 

certain that someone will argue that we'll be hard-hearted and 

inefficient if we force recipients of these billions of dollars to come 

begging to Congress every year for another installment of public 

funding. 

What does this program cost? And where are the funds coming from? 

If the cost for Home Star is the $6 billion contemplated in the Senate bill, 

I wonder whether we can afford this program, given the already 

exploding deficit. After the $10 billion in stimulus for weatherization 

funds and efficiency grants, and this bill and potentially Building Star 

and Rural Star, I wonder how much money the Majority and the 

4 
104 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 112 here 76017A.054

Administration are willing to spend on these types of programs? If the 

Administration's track record on stimulus promises and DOE's 

performance this past year are any indicators, we need to carefully 

examine how much we are spending, where the money is coming from, 

and whether Home Star and other proposed retrofitting programs will a 

successful path to job creation and lower energy bills. 

There are several other potential issues I have with this bill, ranging 

from language about the financial instruments available for funding 

covered projects to onerous labor requirements that make it difficult for 

many small contractors, retail stores, and vendors to share in the 

benefits of the program. The complex manner in which the rebates are 

actually distributed, through many intermediaries, invites fraud, as well 

as the possibility that consumers never actually realize the promised 

energy cost savings. 

I am glad to have a hearing to examine this draft, but I think that, before 

we proceed with this program, it is absolutely essential that an open 

markup be held and that legitimate concerns about the program and 

perfecting amendments be considered. 

5 
105 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 113 here 76017A.055

Mr. Chairman, everybody wants more jobs, more energy and lower 

utility bills. We're concerned that, as drafted, this multi-billion dollar 

program may be notable more for the jobs not created, the energy not 

saved, the bills not reduced, and enormous sums wasted. I hope we 

can find ways to overcome those problems. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

6 
106 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 114 here 76017A.056

Testimony by Terrence J. Mierzwa 

to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 11,2010 

Good morning. My name is Terry Mierzwa, Executive Manager of Marketing, Energy 

Efficiency, and Research at Consumers Energy Company, headquartered in Jackson, 

Michigan. Consumers Energy provides service to 1.8 million electric customers and 1.7 

million natural gas customers in Michigan's Lower Peninsula. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testifY on the draft text of a legislative proposal to 

implement the Home Star program. 

Background 

Consumers Energy is a strong supporter of energy efficiency. It is a key component of 

our Balanced Energy Initiative for meeting our customers' energy demands. In 2007 and 

2008, we worked with our legislature and many interested parties to help craft and pass 

legislation that requires Michigan energy utilities to achieve annual energy savings 

targets through programs we offer to our customers. With strong bipartisan support, 

Governor Granholm signed Public Act 295 into law in October 2008. 

We subsequently developed a comprehensive six-year plan for investing $508 million in 

electric and gas energy efficiency programs for our residential, commercial, and 

industrial customers. The Michigan Public Service Commission approved our plan as 

filed in late May 2009. We launched our portfolio of new programs in late July and. 
107 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 115 here 76017A.057

despite having only five months to do so, I am proud to say we exceeded our 2009 energy 

savings targets of 108,000 MWh of electricity and 300,000 Mcf of natural gas each by 

about 25%. We are off to a great start in 2010 as well. 

Clearly, our customers appreciate these programs and are taking advantage of them. We 

estimate that more than 170,000 residential customers participated in at least one program 

last year, whether it was buying and installing compact fluorescent light bulbs, 

purchasing a high-efficiency furnace, or letting us pick up and recycle an old second 

refrigerator from their basement or garage. Similarly, about 9,500 commercial and 

industrial customers took advantage of our programs. They ranged from an elementary 

school in Swartz Creek that is saving $2,300 annually after installing 22 occupancy 

sensors in 16 classrooms to a General Motors plant in Flint that is saving $125,000 

annually after replacing nearly 1,200 light fixtures with higher efficiency units. Just this 

month, we launched a new program called Think! Energy targeted at 4th through 6th 

graders throughout our service territory. We fully subscribed this program within a 

month and are now in the process of visiting 121 schools and making energy efficiency 

presentations to \3,000 students. In addition, each child will receive a Take Action! Kit 

to take home to review with their family. The kit contains two compact fluorescent light 

bulbs, a high-efficiency showerhead, a faucet aerator, and other easy-to-install measures. 

Our customers look to us as a natural resource for expert energy advice, and the measures 

that all ofthese customers installed will help them save money on their energy bills for 

many years to come. 

2 
108 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 116 here 76017A.058

I might add that the other major energy utility in Michigan, DTE, has followed a similar 

path as have the smaller investor-owned utilities, municipal utilities, and electric 

cooperatives. It is truly a statewide effort. 

Michigan is certainly not the only state in which energy efficiency investment has been 

growing. A new report by the Consortium for Energy Efficiency shows that, since 2006, 

the combined budgets for electric and gas energy efficiency programs in the United 

States have more than doubled, growing from $2.6 billion to $5.3 billion. 

It is clear that energy utilities are well-positioned to playa critical long-term role in 

delivering energy efficiency. In a recent EEl Power Poll, a national sample of residential 

consumers was asked what groups or organizations they would look to for more 

information on how to use electricity more efficiently. Almost 60 percent said they 

would look to their electric utility, which was two-and-a-halftimes as many (23%) who 

mentioned the second most popular source, retailers. 

Program Infrastructure 

Successful implementation of energy efficiency programs by all of these utilities required 

development of the infrastructure necessary to bring them to market. We have hired 

implementation contractors, developed detailed policies and procedures, built Web sites, 

established call centers, built tracking systems, established rebate processing capability, 

and recruited and trained thousands of trade allies. The trade allies include "big box" 

retail stores, architectural and engineering firms, energy auditors, electrical contractors, 

3 
109 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 117 here 76017A.059

home improvement contractors, and heating and cooling contractors across the state. Our 

programs are operated in an open and transparent manner with independent, third-party 

evaluation of the results. All of this activity is conducted under the oversight of the 

Michigan Public Service Commission, which has responsibility for ensuring the prudency 

and cost-effectiveness of our energy efficiency investments. The Commission also plays 

an important role by its operation of various energy efficiency collaboratives through 

which utilities can better coordinate their program offerings and the public can provide its 

input. 

We believe this Michigan model for operating energy efficiency programs is working 

quite well given the energy savings results achieved thus far, and it will continue to get 

even better with additional experience and collaboration. This model is not unique. 

More than twenty other states have legislated energy savings targets that are being 

achieved through similar programs, infrastructure, and collaboration. 

Coordination with Federal Legislation 

The new legislation being proposed to this Committee can ofter enhanced opportunities 

for our customers to become more energy efficient, and we believe that is a worthy goal. 

Improvements in energy efficiency are good for the economy as well as the environment. 

We appreciate the changes that have been made since the original draft and note that 

many align with our priorities. To that end, we have two key requests, as follows: 

4 
110 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 118 here 76017A.060

I. We want to ensure that the infrastructure we already have in place is not 

duplicated in the Home Star program. We believe it is important that energy 

efficiency be achieved in a cost-effective manner, and that states in which utilities 

are operating successful energy efficiency programs are especially wellpositioned to ensure that outcome. By taking advantage ofthe infrastructure the 

utilities already have in place, we can avoid the creation of redundant 

infrastructure and administration, which means more of the money appropriated 

for this effort will flow directly to the consumers who want to improve the energy 

efficiency of their homes. It also means that the jobs created by these federal 

programs can be brought to market more quickly. Home Star will supplement and 

augment what we already have in place. 

2. It is critical that federal legislation be harmonized with existing state legislation 

that has already set energy efficiency requirements for utilities. This can be done 

by making it very clear that utilities are allowed to participate and coordinate their 

programs with Home Star. That clarity will help to enable us to implement 

quickly and promote job creation, while showing our Commission that we have a 

role and should receive appropriate credit toward our energy savings goals. 

Otherwise, the federal dollars will be competing with our programs, making them 

less cost-effective, and potentially causing us to suspend them while federal 

incentives are in place. This would serve neither our customers nor trade allies 

well because they seek assurance of a sustained effort rather than a boom and bust 

5 
111 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 119 here 76017A.061

cycle. 

We very much appreciate that the drafters of this legislation have incorporated many of 

our suggestions and incorporated language that would give states such as Michigan the 

option to flow much of this activity through the existing infrastructure that has already 

been created by the utilities and has enabled each of us to operate successful, costeffective energy efficiency programs. We hope that, as this proposed legislation 

undergoes debate within this Committee and later in the full Senate, this option to take 

advantage of existing utility program infrastructure is preserved. 

Thank you for your attention. 

6 
112 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 120 here 76017A.062

Ms. Lisa Jackson 

AdministrafOr 

US EPA 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Administrator Jackson: 

March 17.2010 

We have become aware of recent press reports indicating that the Window and Door 

Manufacturers Association, the National Association of Home Builders and the Window 

and Door Dealers' Alliance are scheduled to meet with the White House Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) later this week, where they plan to ask for a delay in the 

implementation of EPA's pending lead renovation, repair and painting rule (LRRP). The 

LRRP. which was issued in April 2008 and is scheduled to go into effect on April 22, 

2OlO, will require that (I) all finns performing renovation, repair and painting projects 

that disturb lead-based paint in bomes, child, care facilities and schools built before 1978 

to be certified; (2) renovators must be trained by an EPA-accredited provider; and (3) the 

finns and renovatOrs must follow specific work practices to prevent lead contamination in 

the homes and facilities that undergo renovalions. tn October of 2008, EPA proposed 

amendments to the opt-out provision of the LRRP that currently exempts a renovator 

from the training and work practice requirements of the rule when he or she obtains a 

certification from the owner of a residence he or she occupies that no child under age 6 or 

pregnam women resides in the home and Ule home is not a child-occupied facility. 

We understand that the. building industry groups al,o plan to hold a press conference in 

advance of the meeting with OMS, during which they will state that they are planning to 

urge OMS to delay implementation of the LRRP by six months to a year, to give 

companies time. to cenify for compliance. Tn addition, we understand tnat they will ask 

OMB to overrule EPA's decisions to remove the opt-out provision from the final rule and 

add a requiremeor that renovation jobs be reviewed by a third-party to contino 

compliance. In so doing, the building industry groups will argue that the mle will impose 

significant costs, which wi!! reduce demand for renovation jobs and panicularly impact 

sma!! businesses already strained by the economy. They will further argue that EPA has 

not certified a sufficient number of finns and renovators to be able to su['pon the existing 

demand for renovat ion work. 
113 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 121 here 76017A.063

Ms. Lisa Jackson, Administrator, US EPA 

March 17.2010 

Page Two 

We doubt that the LRRP wjJl have the impacted claimed by the building industry groups. 

I.ndeed, we believe that it is vitally importanL for building renovations £0 be ciu'ried out by 

renovators who have received training on potential health risks associated with 

improperly performed renovations. TI'le EPA-accredited training programs will be even 

more important once the proposed amendment to the 0PL-out provision of the LRRP is 

finalized. Moreover, LiUNA believes that we are in an excellent position to help ensure 

that the training programs are expanded in scope and scale should the demand for training 

increase beyond EPA's ability to support additional trainings. We have a strong network 

of regional training providers, and we are currently working closely with EPA to ensure 

tbat each of our regiona1 training programs is accredited by BPA. In addition, we believe 

that we can easily train 50,000 workers to meet any significant increase in demand for 

renovations that is crealed by proposed home energy retrofit legislation currently under 

conSideration in Congress and supported by the Administration. 

UUNA strongly supports EPA's efforts to implement the lead training rule, and we are 

looking fOIWard to partnenng with EPA to ensure that home renovations are performed 

safely. and do not create unnecessary health risks to residents, families and chHdren. 

With kind regards. I am 

Sincerely yours, 

~ n,. o:1Jl.LTERENCB M. O'SULLIVAN 

General President 
114 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 122 here 76017A.064

We can Protect Children from Lead Hazards by 

Implementing EPA's Rule on Lead Safe Renovation, Remodeling, and Painting 

EPA's regulation of renovation, repair, and painting (RRP) projects was mandated by Congress in 1992 (P.l. 102-550). 

The point of the rule is to prevent the creation of lead hazards during work that disturbs paint in older housing (including 

energy efficiency work). This rule is key to preventing childhood lead poisoning in pre-1978 homes and child-occupied 

facilities. In some states, one-half of all lead poisoning cases are caused by unsafe renovation work. 

The RRP rule will protect 1.4 million children under the age of six from lead exposure in its first year, and additionally 

benefit 5.4 million individuals over the age of six. The estimated cost of the rule as acknowledged by the Bush 

Administration's 2008 economic analysis is $35 per renovation job, including $5/month for firm certification. 

Here are some basic facts about lead poisoning: 

There are approximately 250,000 children in the United States with lead poisoning. 

Each year, more than one million children are at risk of lead pOisoning when their older homes are renovated. 

Lead in dust is the most common way people are exposed to lead. Projects that disturb lead-based paint can create 

dust and endanger children and families. 

Lead is especially toxic for young children since their brains are still developing. The effects include permanent brain 

damage, including loss of 10, behavior problems, memory problems and reduced growth. 

Lead remains the most Significant environmental health hazard to children. 

Adults aren't immune either. Among adults, lead exposure can result in reproductive problems, high blood pressure, 

nerve disorders, muscle and joint pain and memory problems. 

Some industry interests are calling for delay or for exempting new federally-funded programs from the renovation rule 

requirements. Any delay at this pOint is inappropriate - Congress mandated that the rule become effective in 1996-

some fourteen years later, children remain at his risk of lead poisoning when their homes are renovated, repaired, or 

painted.To exempt work subsidized under Home Star would cause federal funds to put children in harm's way. 

The undersigned organizations acknowledge that there are many individual who still require training, but we believe 

that the industry and EPA are positioned to move forward without a delay. We have been informed by EPA that it 

estimates that between 100,000 and 120,000 individuals will have been trained by the rule's effective date of April 22. 

There will be thousands more persons trained thereafter as awareness of the requirements continues to grow and the 

momentum continues. 

We encourage the Dbama Administration and Congress to consider making resources available for free training and paid 

advertising. Because access to accredited training has varied widely, and some states lack enough training to train the 

number of potential renovators who need training, we encourage consideration of funding free training to motivate 

trainers to schedule classes. There remains a place for raising public awareness of the requirements so property owners 

will know to hire certified renovators and to be aware that renovators are required to follow lead-safe practices. 

Further, EPA must devote sufficient resources to compliance assistance and enforcement and should consider the 

appropriate use of forbearance from enforcement actions for contractors who comply with the core requirements and 

demonstrate progress toward 100% compliance. 

American Public Health Association 

Children's Health Forum 

Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning 

National Center for Healthy Housing 

Sierra Club 

The Home Safety Council 

March 18, 2010 
115 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 123 here 76017A.065

HEARING BEFORE 

THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

ENTITLED 

"HOMESTAR: JOB CREATION THROUGH 

HOME ENERGY RETROFITS" 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF 

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® 

MARCH 18, 2010 
116 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 124 here 76017A.066

Introduction 

The National Association ofREALTORS® appreciates the opportunity to submit a written statement to 

the House Energy and Commerce SubCOlml1ittee Oil Energy and Environment on the critical subject of the 

creation ofjohs related to energy efficiency, and especially on prnposa!s that address job creation in the 

area of energy-efficient building retrofits, 

The National Asoociation is America's largest trade associatioll, representing 

more than 1.2 million members involved in all aspects of the residential and commercia! real estate 

industries. NAR is the leading advocate for homcownership, affordable housing and private property 

rights. 

NAR alld Gl'cell Job Creatioll 

In addition to building a certified greell bnilding, NAR has taken a number of other important steps to 

raise pnhlic awareness about green buildings and their benefits in the marketplace. For example, NAR 

has: 

Developed the GREEN Designation program to offer advanced training and certillcation for real 

estate professionals, Like many professionals, continuing education classes and professional 

designations are a regular parI ofRealtors@' on-going training, The GREEN designation helps 

Realtors" gain the expertise needed to advise what to look for and consider when 

interested in making more eco-friendly building purchase", 

Pmtl1ered with Federal agencies and others to promote green huildings, For exmnple, NAR and 

the Department of Energy collaborated to provide consumers with an "Energy Savers" brochure 

with the facts about reducing energy use and saving money, 

These are all examples of voluntary, incentive-based approaches that will create jobs white improving 

energy efficiency and are crlllsistent with NAR policy, 

NAn. Perspectives 011 the Proposed HomeStar Legislation 

NAR strongly supports providing property oWllers with the education, inccntives and resources they need 

to voluntarily improve their homes Hnd save energy, the Snbcomrnillce's efforts to develop 

legislation to achieve just that Providing owners with voluntary, ineentive,bascd programs 10 make 

energy efficiency improvements their homes will add value to residential property, reduce electricity 

use and save money on ntility bills, as well as help to stimulate ajob market in remodeling and renovation 

activities, We thank Chainnan Markey Ii)!' holding this important hearing and support the goa! of drati: 

legislation to incclltivize energy efficient homes. 

As drafted, the HomcStar Energy Retrofit Act of20l() proposes to offer homeowners resources to achieve 

residential energy efticiency savings through rebates and financial incentives, The Silver Star tier wonld 

offer rebaies of up to $3,000 for npgradcs sndl as adding insulation, duct sealing, and installing energyefticient water heaters, The Gold Star tier would offer larger rebates for whole-home energy audits and 

National Association of REALTORS" 
117 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 125 here 76017A.067

make subsequent retroms that achieve 20 perceni energy savings, with additional 

savings that exceed 20 percent. 

for energy 

NAR supports hOmeOv,'llCrS rehutes for condu,~ting energy efficiency improvements, We look 

forward to working with the Suhcommittee the disctlssion draft to: 

I, R,'cognize the job-creation potemial ofllle multi-family and commercial sectors by extending 

rchates to those kinds of propenics; 

Preserve state flexibility, and limit regulatory authority and the soie discretion provided to the 

Secretary regarding home performance ratings lllld documentation; and 

3. Minimize \JtlnC'Ce1;sarv DUTl;[,,!eD,CY and red 

private infonnalion. 

diligently protecting consumers and 

NAR's Perspective Or! tlw Proposed Recovery Tbrougb Retrofit Initiative 

While the HomeS!ar legislation appears an effective approach inccntivize home owners to 

conduct energy efficiency improvements a home, NAR is very conccmed about Administration 

initiatives that take II much different approach and seem to usc the home buying process as the vehicle to 

implement a system of home energy labels, while mandating energy efficiency improvements, 

On October 19, 2009, Vice-President Biden announced the development major federal government 

initiative, the Recovery Through Retrofit This create a national home energy 

retrofit market providing: (l) access to home energy relmIi! infonnatiotl; (2) access to home energy 

retrolit financing methods; and (3) access to a trained home workforce, 

If the goal is energy efficient homes and buildings, the most effective approach would be to provide the 

financial resources and incentives that educate and empower properly owners to make needed energy 

improvements, sueh as the proposed HmneStal' program, 

Mlll1(lating an unreliable home rating system will not lead to home energy usc reductions. When buyers 

hold all the cards at the closing tahle and too many homeowners have no equity or savings to finance 

energy improvements, transaction-based triggers only serve to send conflicting market signalS -- without 

any assurances that needed energy improvements wi!! he mmic, As a result, NAR strongly opposes this 

approach, 

NAR I','rspectives ()ll the Energy Performance Lahel for Existing Homes 

Labeling every structure in America will not, in und of itsclj~ improve energy efficiency of homes or 

buildings, Owners must act on the information by tuking the next steps and making energy-related 

improvements such as replacing aging heating and cooling systems, appliances and windows, 

Today, however, many homeowners have seen their financial wd!-hcing undermined, Jobs have been 

jost, savings have eroded and property values have plummeted, Without the savings or equity, many lack 

the financial resources to make the energy improvements they know they need to make, Eller!,'Y 

Nation a! Association of REALTORS" 
118 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 126 here 76017A.068

will stigmatize older properties and make it harder for these individuals to build savings or equity. 

Labels also will reduce property values when existing owners sell and are forced to negotiate price 

reductions in order to compete today's bnyer':; market. 

According to data collected by the American Housing Survey (ABS) and analyzed by NAR, labeling real 

estate wi!! create disproportional impacts on o!dcrproperty owners. More lhan of U.S. homes were 

built prior to 1980 when the tirst building energy codes were established, and face relatively larger losses 

in property value due to building labels. These properties will require more improvements than the newer 

properties in order to match labeling scores maintain their value. 

According to the AHS data. large share of'tllesc older properties are owned and occupied by popUlations 

which tend to live Oil modest ur fixed incomes, and leas! ahle to affhrd these improvements without 

significant financial assistance. These populations include 73% of elderly, 69% of impoverished and 64% 

of Hispanic and black owners. Lahels will not only stigmatize older homes h\111hc communities where 

they tITC located, and which arc struggling 10 maintain and attract investment. There will also be regional 

disparities: The Northeastern United States, where homes arc conce11trated. could farc worse than 

the other structures located in the south and west Rural communities couJd he especially hard hit, a 

substantial proportion of homes those areas built prior to 1980. 

Before branding homes and buildings with labels, consumers require a heltcr \mdcrstanding of energy 

efficieney and the tools to tum ini'brmation into action. For this reason, NAR supports: 

A, Raising public awareness about energy cllkicncy programs and infOlmation. 

B. Encouraging the federal government and the 

consumers to improve homes and buildings. 

to financial incentives to 

By devcl.oping the infrastructure education, and providing the right incentives, property owners wi!! 

make the energy improvements that will achieve real 

filAR Perspectives Regarding CeriificlItiOil lind Training Standards 

In both the HomcStar and the Recovery Through Rctrolit proposals, there are provisions that address 

training and certilicatioll of workers to ensure that qnality is performed. The federal government 

should proceed carefnlly when developing a national set of guidelines and standards that address unifonn 

certification and training for workers entering this new grcenjohs market While NAR recognizes the 

need to ensure reliability for this work, too many standards and training criteria will entrepreneurial 

job creation and hinder the ability of small businesses to respond to rising retrofit demand. If one cliche 

bears repeating. it is the well-worn trope "one guidelines coming from inside the Beltway 

generally do not tit all the varying markets across the country. The federal govcmmcnt strike a 

carethl balance between creating II consistent of guidelines that will increase consumer confidence and 

promote a stable and reliable national home retrotit workplace on one hand, while on the ensure that 

loca! businesses are not hindered in their ability respond to demand for this work. 

National Association of REALTORS'" 
119 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 127 here 76017A.069

In addition, while NAR appreciates the efforts of Congress encourage homeowners to make voluntary, 

incentive-based energy eiIiciency improvements, the planned implementation of an EPA mle threatens to 

derail these activities, The Lead Renovation, Repair program applies to aJ! and 

child-occupied facilities built before 1978 where a age or a pregnant woman resides, 

envisioned by Congress, such 

this rule. The renovators 

lead-safe work practices, 

UnfiJrlunatcly, the EPA has been 

greater inside the home or 20 square ieel on 

insulation and olhor activities will trigger 

be trained in all oftlle new 

training and certification programs in place 

both the normal renovation activities 

and the expanded energy efficienoy retro!!! projects anticipated by thc As result, while the Act 

envisions massive retronts the there will he qualified to perform the 

work, thus hindering the very market the Act EPA should extend 

compliance date for lead paint 

available, 

cCltification 

COllciusioll- NAR Seeks 1I Will-Will Scenario 

sufficicll1 number of workers 

Realtors® respond to growing consumer demand for green housing, NAR policy supports voluntary, 

incentive-based approach to 

sustain tbe currell! !,'1'cenlrends, 

efficiency retmfit.;i of existing huusing, Such an approach would 

them a more permanent fcalm'e in the marketplace, This, 

view of Realtors"', provides a ""',",_""'h'- by allowing for vigom(1) ecollomic growth while 

improving the environment 

The green building market is already responding to consnmer For example, consider this recent 

headline in the Miami "Increasing demand efficient, environmentally friendly 

buildings bringing business architects doring the cOllstruction " McGraw-Hill Construction 

is forecasting that the combined commercia! green buikling markets will lotal $62 

billion by 2010, Architects, homebuilders, rcmodelem, real estate agents all the industries thaI on 

housing and homebuilding are responding green issues, They are responding hy 

building and providing products that the is happening all withoul significant 

assistance (or interference) from the 

The Federal does provide important puhlic research, capital incentives, sneh as 

the currenl tax credit fur energy emeien! home improvcmcms which spurs demand and interest However, 

NAR helieves that govcmmen! limited to this By leading the way with green Federal 

huildings, providing for research that spurs innovation and importantly, keeping the fluid 

and free of mandates, and encouraging rohm;t consumer education programs, the Federal government 

do more to promote public good than v.ith mandates that will only hinder lhe a! timc of 

economic recovery, 

National Association of REALTORS" 
120 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 128 here 76017A.070

NAR 1110mhc!> 

curren! 

market 

l1cxihh;, and markcH!dvcl1, C'n,Clltlra:f(cs 

COI1:\umers in ail mark"I~, as well :t; 

5 National Association of REALTORS@ 
121 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 129 here 76017A.071

Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

August 5, 2010 

The Honorable Edward J. Markey 

Chainnan 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chainnan: 

On March 18,2010, Cathy Zoi, Assistant Secretary, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, testified regarding "HomeStar: Job Creation Through Home 

Energy Retrofits." 

Enclosed are the answers to 1 0 questions submitted by Representatives Barton 

and Burgess to complete the hearing record. 

If we can be of further assistance, please have your staff contact our 

Congressional Hearing Coordinator, Lillian Owen, at (202) 586·2031. 

Enclosures 

cc: The Honorable Henry W. Waxman 

Chainnan 

Committee on Energy and Cornmerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Sincerely, 

Betty A. Nolan 

Senior Advisor 

Congressional and Intergovernmental 

Affairs 
122 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 130 here 76017A.072

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE BARTON 

Q I. The Administration indicates that the number of homes retrofitted or improved 

under the Home Star program, which as proposed is a $6 billion program under 

which rebates would be paid out in fiscal years 20 I 0 and 2011, could be 3 

million. 

a. What is the source ofthls 3 miJIion estimate? 

b. Based on DOE's experience with weatherization programs, is this estimate 

realistic? Please explain. 

c. Has DOE prepared any of its own estimates of the number of homes that 

would be likely to be retrofitted or improved? If yes: 

o What analysis has been done? 

o What is DOE's estimate of the number of homes that would be likely 

to be retrofitted or improved? 

AI. Under the Silver Star program as proposed in the legislation, participating homes 

would be eligible for up to $3,000 in total rebates. DOE estimates that the 

average actual claim would be approximately $1,500. Similarly, the Gold Star 

program would provide rebates of up to $8,000; DOE estimates that the average 

actual claim would be approximately $3,500. Given these estimates and the total 

funding available, DOE calculates between 2.5 and 3 million rebates would be 

claimed. DOE's experience with the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) 

is not particularly helpful in analyzing the potential program uptake rates of Home 

Star, because the WAP model- providing fully subsidized retrofit work to 

income-qualifying homeowners, with no homeowner investment required -

differs substantially from the proposed Home Star model of a 50% homeowner 

rebate. Other than the simple calculation described above, DOE has not prepared 
123 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 131 here 76017A.073

any of its own estimates of the number of homes that would be likelv to be 

retrofitted or improved. 
124 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 132 here 76017A.074

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE BARTON 

Q2. Will it be possible under the Home Star program to track the number of homes 

actually retrofitted or improved? 

a. Jfyes, would DOE track the number of homes actually retrofitted or 

improved? And would DOE make that data publicly available? 

b. If no, would any other government agency track that information and make it 

publicly available? 

A2. It will be possible to track the number of homes improved through the Home Star 

Program. That data could be tracked and made publicly available in aggregated 

form to the extent allowed by existing law. 
125 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 133 here 76017A.075

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE BARTON 

Q3. The Administration indicates that "tens of thousands" of new jobs would be 

created as a result of the Home Star program. 

a. What is the source of this estimate? 

b. Based on DOE's experience with weatherization programs, is this estimate 

realistic? Please explain. 

c. Has DOE prepared its own estimate of the number of new jobs that would be 

created? If yes: 

o What analysis has been done? 

o What is DOE's estimate of the number of jobs that would be likely to be 

created? 

o Will there be any way to track the number of new jobs created? 

o If yes, would DOE, the Department of Labor or any other agency 

track that information? 

o If yes, would that data be made publicly available? 

d. Has DOE performed any analysis to verify the estimate asserted by other 

witnesses that 168,000 new jobs would be created? 

o Does DOE believe that is a realistic estimate? 

A3. The DOE job estimates are based on analysis established by the Council of 

Economic Advisors for federal stimulus spending which creates one job-year for 

each $92,000 (see http://www.whitehouse.gov/assetsidocuments/JobYears Revised5-8.pdf). DOE's experience with the Weatherization Assistance 

Program suggests that this estimate is realistic. DOE would track the total 

number of rebates claimed by contractors and the total number of contractors 

participating in the program. DOE would also track the number of hours worked 

by contractors on jobs for which a rebate was given, based on contractor self-
126 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 134 here 76017A.076

reporting, which would allow an estimate of the total amount of labor supported 

by the program. Aggregated labor estimates from self-reporting contractors could 

be made publicly available if tracking efforts prove successful and to the extent 

allowed by existing law. 
127 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 135 here 76017A.077

QUESTION FROM REPRESENATIVE BARTON 

Q4. The Administration indicates homeowners may save $200 to $500 per year under 

the Home Star Program. 

a. Is this estimate for the participants of the Gold Star program? 

b. What is the source of the estimate? 

c. What verification, if any, has DOE done of that estimate? 

d. How much faith should homeowners put in that estimate? 

A4. There are approximately 130 million homes in the U.S. that account for about 33 

percent of the Nation's total electricity demand while consuming approximately 

22 percent of the Nation's energy. Americans spend approximately $200 billion 

per year in residential energy costs, and the average homeowner's annual energy 

bill is $2,100. Weatherizing a single house can save 10 to 20 percent of energy 

consumption on average, using basic technology (weather-stripping, insulation, 

etc). 

The $200 to $500 average annual energy savings include both the Silver Star and 

Gold Star programs. Increased energy efficiency upgrades under the Gold Star 

program have the potential to save households more energy and money than those 

made under Silver Star. 

The estimate of average savings is in line with industry-led and non-profit 

estimates made by organizations like the American Council for an Energy 

Efficient Economy. The Department verified these estimates through engineering 

analyses and retrospective analyses of historic information on homes weatherized 
128 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 136 here 76017A.078

under the Department's Weatherization Assistance Program. A distinct advantage 

of upgrading home energy efficiency at either Silver Star or Gold ~tar levels is the 

impact on American families who can spend their hard earned income on 

education, health care, and other priorities instead of on wasted en:ergy. 
129 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 137 here 76017A.079

QUESTION FROM REPRESENATIVE BARTON 

Q5. Has DOE analyzed how the Home Star program would be administered by DOE? 

a. Are the timelines for setting up the program realistic? 

b. What would DOE's administrative costs be for the Home Star program? 

c. Has DOE prepared detailed estimates of the potential administrative costs? If 

yes, what are those more detailed estimated administrative costs? 

A5. The legislation provides DOE 30-60 days to stand up the infrastructure necessary 

for the rebate program. The Department is confident that we can meet our 

obligations to begin the program within this timeframe. Unlike other rebate 

programs, Home Star is designed to facilitate the quick processing of rebates. 

Home Star uses established entities in a network of rebate aggregators. 

Rebate aggregators would be responsible for ensuring that contractors meet 

requirements and hold appropriate certifications. By partnering with rebate 

aggregators, the Department does not expect this tirneframe to be very long and 

does not expect to incur significant administrative costs itself as a result. 

All rebate aggregators would be eligible for a per transaction fee to support their 

administrative costs. Rebate aggregators would provide mechanisms for rebate 

payouts to contractors and administrative costs. 

At this point, DOE does not have a detailed estimate of potential administrative 

costs. However, as mentioned above, we do believe that the overhead costs will 

beminimaI. 
130 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 138 here 76017A.080

QUESTION FROM REPRESENATIVE BARTON 

Q6. How will the Home Star program rebate work? 

a. Will the homeowner be assured of receiving the full amount of the rebate? 

b. Will the homeowner have to do any paperwork? 

c. To whom will they apply for a rebate, when and what will the process be? 

d. When does the homeowner ultimately get the rebate? 

e. Will the rebates be available for eligible products at retail stores? If yes, who 

can apply for those rebates? 

f. How will the "Do It Yourself' or "DIY" provisions of the legislation work? 

A6. The Home Star program would be a point-of-sale rebate program. Rebate 

aggregators would provide homeowners an immediate 50 percent discount on 

eligible efficiency products. Homeowners would not submit rebate requests, but 

would be immediately discounted at the point of sale. 

The process, from work performed to quality assurance inspection, could roughly 

follow these basic steps: 

• Work is performed by the contractor for 50 percent of the normal 

cost - the rebate is passed on to the consumer as an immediate 

discount at the point of sale; 

• The contractor submits a rebate request to a rebate aggregator; 

and 

• In parallel to rebate processing, the quality assurance provider 

coordinates inspections of retrofits and relays results to the 

Department; 

• The rebate aggregator collects a batch of rebate requests, reviews 

them for accuracy, and submits the batch to the Department; 

• The Department immediately reviews the rebate requests 

electronically. If approving, the Departmentreleases funds to the 
131 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 139 here 76017A.081

rebate aggregator, and notifies the relevant quality assurance 

providers; 

• The rebate aggregator reimburses the contractor within 30 days; 

• The rebate aggregators are central to the success of this program. 

The Department of Energy (DOE) anticipates that rebate 

aggregators would be many different kinds of organizations 

involved in the retrofit industry, such as Home Performance with 

ENERGY ST AR@ partners, regional lumber stores, large 

efficiency contractor companies, hardware stores, and big box 

retailers. 

An entity would be eligible to be a rebate aggregator if it is: 

- A Home Performance with ENERGY STAR@ partner; 

- Administering a residential energy efficiency retrofit program 

established or approved by a State; 

- A Federal Power Marketing Administration, an electric utility, or a 

natural gas utility with an approved residential energy efficiency 

retrofit program and an established quality assurance provider 

network; or 

- An entity the Secretary deems able to perform the functions of a 

rebate aggregator, without disrupting existing residential retrofits 

in the States incorporating the Home Star program. 

The rebate aggregators would serve as a manageable number-an estimated 200 

to 500-0f"touch points" for DOE. The aggregators would provide an important 

service in educating contractors about the program, reviewing their rebate claims 

for completeness, and working as partners with the Department in ensuring the 

program operates smoothly. 

Through quality assurance testing and verification, the program is structured to 

mitigate waste, fraud and abuse. Additionally, any rebate aggregator or other 
132 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 140 here 76017A.082

organization, contractor or homeowner that falsely claims a rebate would be 

subject to tax fraud penalties. 

While Home Star would deliver job growth and energy efficiency through a 

system of rebates to consumers, the program would use a more effective structure 

than standard mail-in rebate coupons. DOE would work through the network of 

rebate aggregators to allow contractors to offer consumers immediate, point-ofsale discounts on the installation of energy-efficient products. This structure 

involves some aspects of the traditional mail-in coupon rebate program, but is 

more similar to the rebates offered under the Car Allowance Rebate System 

(CARS) operated by the Department of Transportation in 2009, also known as the 

Cash for Clunkers program. 

Oversight of the program by the Department would include helping homeowners 

understand the relative benefits of taking a Home Star rebate and/or a tax credit 

by working with EPA and IRS to create an "estimated benefits calculator" on the 

public Home Star website. 

The DIY provisions will work similarly to other provisions. At the point of sale, 

the purchaser will get a rebate in the form of an immediate discount up to a 

certain percentage of the cost of the energy efficiency measure. 
133 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 141 here 76017A.083

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE BARTON 

Q1. If a homeowner has a home improvement project done under the Home Star 

program, how and when will they have to pay for the project? In particular: 

a. Will they pay the installer up front for the work and then get reimbursed later? 

b. Or will the homeowner be entitled to hold off on paying until the installer has 

done the paperwork and has the rebate check in hand? 

c. What happens if the installer does not receive the expected rebate (e.g. it turns 

out the particular measure or product installed is not eligible for a rebate)? 

o Could the homeowner be on the hook for the amount of the expected 

rebate? 

d. How will the homeowner navigate the issue of whether to take a rebate or a 

tax credit? Will that be easy to figure out? 

e. What happens ifthe homeowner decides to take a tax credit but the installer 

still applies for the rebate? 

o Can the installer retain the rebate? 

o Has DOE considered how to ensure against potential "double dipping," 

i.e. ensuring that for a specific home improvement project the installer 

is not applying for and retaining rebates while the homeowner is 

taking a tax credit? 

o Has DOE consulted with the IRS about this issue or other potential 

issues associated with the implementation of the Home Star program? 

A1. Per the proposed legislation, the Home Star program would be a point-of-sale 

rebate program. Working with rebate aggregators would enable homeowners to 

buy efficiency products at an immediate 50 percent discount. Homeowners would 

not submit rebate requests, but would be immediately discounted at the point of 

sale. 

Through a comprehensive quality assurance testing and verification program, the 

Department would mitigate waste, fraud and abuse. Additionally, any 
134 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 142 here 76017A.084

organization, contractor or house holder that falsely claims a rebate or tax credit 

would be subject to penalty. 

Oversight of the program by the Department would include helping homeowners 

understand the relative benefits of taking a Home Star rebate and/or a tax credit 

by working with EPA and IRS to create an "estimated benefits calculator" on the 

public Home Star website. 
135 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 143 here 76017A.085

QUESTION FROM REPRESENT A TIVE BURGESS 

QI. We've heard testimony that the jobs created through these [stimulus] programs 

will be some 90% done by American companies, yet we heard similar arguments 

during consideration of the so called "Stimulus" bill, and yet reports from as late 

as last month have been that more than 79 percent of stimulus funds for wind 

energy, some $1.71 billion, have gone to foreign companies. How are we going 

to ensure that these rebates and appropriations are going to American companies 

and creating American jobs? 

A 1. The Department is committed to investing Recovery Act funds to ensure that the 

U.S. is the world's leading market for, and the world's leading manufacturer of, 

clean energy technologies. Reports that nearly $2 billion of Section 1603 funds 

for wind energy are not supporting American projects or creating American jobs 

are inaccurate. The Section 1603 grants are awarded to U.S. clean energy 

projects, built in the U.S. by American workers. It is mistaken to conclude that. 

because many of the projects have foreign ownership, the funds are going abroad 

or the jobs are being created abroad. According to data reported by the project 

developers in their applications, these clean energy projects have created or saved 

more than 6,000 U.S. construction jobs and more than 1,000 ongoing U.S. 

operating and maintenance jobs. As for manufacturing jobs, all of the turbine 

manufacturers in the funded projects have manufacturing facilities employing 

American workers and this capacity is increasing. The average U.S. content of 

wind turbines installed in the U.S. has increased from 25% just a few years ago to 

over 50% today, showing how attractive the U.S. has become for clean energy 

manufacturing and investment, in part due to this program 1. The first $2 billion of 

grants provided by this program helped catalyze over $10 billion of project 

I American Wind Energy Association. US Wind Annual Repon2009. page 36, 
136 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 144 here 76017A.086

development and manufacturing investment from overseas into the U.S2., 

supporting the creation of thousands of additional U.S. jobs that otherwise would 

not have been created. 

'This includes SI billion of manufacturing inveslments by VeslllS. $6 billion ofprnjecl investments by lberdrola and $4 billion of 

prnjett investments by Horizon, a1lannOUJleed afler lite Reeovtfy Act was passed. See U.s. Department ofTreaswy Press Release 

mentioning VeslllS, 2(J()9.9.22·I0-943·IS090 bUp;/iwww treas govlpress/re!easesl2OQ9922I OW! 5Q9Q,htm • lberdrola Renewables 

Press Rei .... 09.6.61 bt!p;/Iwww ibFrdro!orenewabtes usln.ws!rel 09 09 01 Mf (Iberdro!a). and Horizon Wind Press Release 

bUp·/Iwww.bprlzonwjnd eominewsiOO .. men1s/EJ:>!'Renewables'T!!rgets!o!nvest4IlmipninAmericanWindEnen!Y.pdf. 
137 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 145 here 76017A.087

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE BURGESS 

Q2. As of March 4, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy spent only 

$823 million of its appropriated $14.5 billion. Yet here we are discussing 

providing your office yet another blank check - or as we in Congress call "such 

sums as may be required" - I'm not sure why your office needs an addition $6 

billion considering you have so much money - nearly $15 billion by my 

estimation -just lying around not being used - 12 months after we passed a bill 

that was supposed to be about "shovel ready" projects. What is your office doing 

to get that money out the door, and how can we justify giving you more federal 

dollars when you haven't used all we've given you? 

A2. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) has made great 

strides in soliciting competitive applications and obligating awards for the 

Recovery Act. EERE has made the award ofthe Recovery Act funds a top 

priority. As of April 30, 2010, EERE has obligated $15.4 billion to approximately 

3,000 individual grantees, (92 percent), of the $16.8 billion appropriated. The 

remaining 8 percent is committed to the winners of competitive solicitations 

already conducted. 

As an example, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program 

(EECBG) has undergone an unprecedented ramp-up in program implementation 

that impacted over 2,300 recipients. Some initial delays included implementing 

Davis-Bacon, NEP A, and Historic Preservation provisions and reviews, as well as 

running recipient-level solicitations. To meet the challenges at hand, EERE set 

aggressive deadlines with grant recipients and worked with recipients to issue 

solicitations and make sub-awards. In the course of the last month recipients 

ramped up payments from prior periods reflecting costs for the EECBG Program 

of$158.9 million (6 percent). 
138 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 146 here 76017A.088

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE BURGESS 

Q3. Attached, I have included two articles regarding the Department's approval of 

Stimulus and other grant money being sent to foreign companies, 

a. In the Dallas Morning News Article, "Cappy McGarr, Chinese partners 

propose U.S. Wind Turbine Plant," it suggests that McGarr would be applying 

for some $480 million in federal aid, which go in large part to his Chinese 

partners to build components of the wind turbines overseas. Has this proposal 

been sent to the Department of Energy? How will the Department evaluate 

proposals where a substantial amount of funding will go to foreign 

companies? 

b. In the Investigative Reporting Workshop article "Renewable Energy Money 

Still Going Abroad, Despite Criticism From Congress," the report states that 

more than 80 percent of the first $1 billion in grants to wind energy companies 

went to foreign firms. Is this figure accurate? Please provide a list offoreign 

firms who have received grant funding in calendar years 2009 and 2010. 

c. Please provide any additional response to these articles, including an 

explanation of how the Department is prioritizing American firms for 

receiving stimulus funding, and what safeguards are in place to prevent large 

percentages of funding from going overseas. 

A3. The Texas project discussed in the press has not submitted an application for t 603 

grants. The Department of Treasury reviews proposals, using eligibility criteria 

consistent with the Internal Revenue Code and the intent of the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

The Department is committed to investing Recovery Act funds to ensure that the 

U.S. is the world's leading market for, and the world's leading manufacturer of, 

clean energy technologies. Reports that nearly $2 billion Section 1603 funds for 

wind energy are not supporting American projects or creating American jobs are 

inaccurate. The Section 1603 grants are awarded to U.S. clean energy projects, 

built in the U.S. by American workers. It is mistaken to conclude that, because 
139 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 147 here 76017A.089

projects are owned by foreign entities or by entities that have foreign parent 

companies, the funds are going abroad or the jobs are being created abroad. 

Evidence suggests that even in projects where foreign firms are principally 

involved, an increasing share of that funding is being reinvesting in new U.S.-

based projects or manufacturing capacity. The average U.S. content of wind 

turbines installed in the U.S. has increased from 25% just a few years ago to over 

50% today, showing how attractive the U.S. has become for clean energy 

manufacturing and investment, in part due to this program? The first $2 billion of 

grants provided by this program helped catalyze over $10 billion of project 

development and manufacturing investment from overseas into the U.S., 

supporting the creation of thousands of additional U.S. jobs that otherwise would 

not have been created.4 

According to data reported by the project developers in their applications, these 

clean energy projects have created or saved more than 6,000 U.S. construction 

jobs and more than 1,000 ongoing U.S. operating and maintenance jobs. As for 

manufacturing jobs, all of the turbine manufacturers in the funded projects have 

manufacturing facilities employing American workers and this capacity is 

increasing. 

3 American Wind Energy Association, US Wind Annual Repor/2009. page 36. 

4 This includes $1 billion ofmanufaclUring Inves_1S by Vestas. $6 billion of project InvestmenlS by lherdrola and $4 billion of 

project investments by Horizon, all announced after the Recovery Act was passed. See U.S. Depanment ofTreasury Press Release 

mentioning Vcstas.2009·9·22·!Q.943·15090 hll1';tIwww·t~releases/200W! 0943 !5Q90.hIW lberdrola Renewables 

PleSS Release 09.0.01 bUn'V",,,,w ibet:drol!lllmewab!es IlSInOW!!ltel 09.99 01 pdf ((heRlrola), and Horizon Wind Press Release 

hnn'/lw",w.bQrjmn",ind cnmfncws!dncumtsIEDPR,,,,,,WllblesTarge!S101nyel!!4BillioninAmctjcnnWjndEncmy Ildf. 
140 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 148 here 76017A.090

Response to Follow-Up Question for Written Submission 

Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment 

"Home Star: Job Creation Through Home Energy Retrofits" 

March 18,2010 

Christopher A.S. Pratt, on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) 

Questiou from The Houorable Michael Burgess 

1. You testified as to the success of the Minnesota rebate program, and stated that one of the 

key reasons that this program was successful over other rebate programs around the 

nation is that the Department of Labor granted the contractors in Minnesota an 

exemption to the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements. Over and over, reports on 

Davis-Bacon and project labor agreements (PLAs) have show that they needlessly and 

exponentially increase costs to construction projects. Despite this, President Obama has 

issued an Executive Order requiring PLAs, and their resulting cost increases, to all 

federal construction projects. Could you talk a little more about how Davis-Bacon has 

increased costs to contractors, and do you believe we should specifically exclude DavisBacon and PLAs from beiug imposed on any provisions of this and future legislation? 

Historically, the residential construction industry has had little interaction with Davis-Bacon 

wage rates and requirements because it is typically a non-unionized sector of construction and 

most residential projects are privately funded. However, NAHB does have sectors of its 

membership - Le., those constructing mixed-use projects and affordable housing - that have 

experience with Davis-Bacon and NAHB believes Congress is attempting to increase the scope 

of Davis-Bacon requirements to expand its reach onto private projects and programs that have 

never previously been subject to the requirement. For example, the broad Davis-Bacon 

language contained in the 2009 stimulus bill injected Davis-Bacon into programs, such as the 

Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program, which previously never had to 

comply with Davis-Bacon. 

Because contractors working in the residential construction industry have had little interaction 

with Davis-Bacon, it is always shocking to realize the kind of bureaucratic tangle and cost 

increases that accompany attempts to comply. The paperwork requirements alone mean that 

many NAHB members - most of whom are very small businesses - would simply walk away 

from doing projects that require Davis-Bacon compliance. This has repeatedly occurred with 

the weatherization funding in the stimulus bill. NAHB members including remodelers, 

retrofit workers, and weatherization professionals - would typically have the skills and capacity 

to undertake the weatherization work on existing homes, but when they learned of the DavisBacon requirements attached to the funding for the program, they simply opted out of doing 

those projects. Thus, the goal of providing federal funding to weatherize and dramatically 

improve energy efficiency in the nation's existing housing stock is never fully met because the 

government has layered burdensome bureaucratic hoops and confusion that dissuades small 

businesses from attempting to do the work. NAHB agrees with Congress and the 
141 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 149 here 76017A.091

Administration that improving energy efficiency in existing homes is an important and 

necessary goal; however, requiring costly administrative mandates on such activities precludes 

us from fully leveraging the power of the private sector to actually get the job done. If not for 

the perseverance and insistence of the Builders Association of Minnesota to obtain a specific 

exemption from Davis-Bacon for Project Reenergize, NAHB believes that the program would 

never have been able to realize its substantial success and rapid results. 

NAHB members have long believed that the entire process for collecting and determining 

Davis-Bacon wage rates is flawed. The current survey process, which simply serves as a 

mechanism for reflecting the content of unionized labor agreements, is arcane and misguided. 

NAHB believes that the government's interest in determining local wage rates is better served 

by reliance on the data produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on the actual wage 

rates that are reported by employers. The most recent BLS data indicates that wage rates for 

residential construction workers (non-administrative) are $19.36 per hour. IfBLS is already 

collecting actual wage rate information for all industries and occupation categories, NAHB 

believes that continued reliance on Davis-Bacon wage surveys is superfluous. 

Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) are also not typically something that the vast majority of the 

residential construction industry ever encounters because few residential projects ever meet the 

$25 million trigger at which point PLAs come into effect. However, NAHB continues to be 

concerned that the burden of complying with PLAs will also begin encroaching on private 

sector projects, thus further discouraging NAHB members from moving forward with efforts to 

achieve the collective goal of improving energy efficiency. 

American homeowners pay the price for misguided bureaucratic mandates inserted by 

Congress into otherwise worthy programs. Homeowners either find that the energy 

improvement projects they want to do on their homes are dramatically more expensive due to 

wage rates and requirements that are based on faulty survey processes (and thus the 

homeowners cannot afford to undertake necessary efficiency upgrades to their homes), or they 

find that there are no contractors willing to do the work under the terms of federally-sponsored 

incentives that homeowners would otherwise have used. In the end, because taxpayer dollars 

are being expended for programs that are not achieving their goals, it is a losing scenario for 

energy efficiency, consumer savings, and the government. Therefore, NAHB firmly believes 

that Congress should avoid the inclusion of mandatory Davis-Bacon or Project Labor 

Agreement (PLA) requirements in this legislation, and any future legislation that has a goal of 

improving energy efficiency in private homes in the United States. 

2 

o