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

48–736PS 2009

PUSHING THE EFFICIENCY ENVELOPE:

R&D FOR HIGH–PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS,

INDUSTRIES, AND CONSUMERS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 28, 2009

Serial No. 111–21

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico

PAUL D. TONKO, New York

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM MATHESON, Utah

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio

KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida

SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan

VACANCY

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia

PETE OLSON, Texas

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico

PAUL D. TONKO, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

JEAN FRUCI Democratic Staff Director

CHRIS KING Democratic Professional Staff Member

MICHELLE DALLAFIOR Democratic Professional Staff Member

SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member

ELAINE PAULIONIS PHELEN Democratic Professional Staff Member

ADAM ROSENBERG Democratic Professional Staff Member

JETTA WONG Democratic Professional Staff Member

ELIZABETH CHAPEL Republican Professional Staff Member

TARA ROTHSCHILD Republican Professional Staff Member

STACEY STEEP Research Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

April 28, 2009

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 6

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7

Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 7

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8

Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 8

Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 9

Witnesses:

Mr. Steven Chalk, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 11

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13

Biography .......................................................................................................... 20

Mr. William J. Coad, President, Coad Engineering Enterprises, and Chairman, High-Performance Building Council, National Institute of Building

Sciences

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 20

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 22

Biography .......................................................................................................... 23

Mr. Paul N. Cicio, President, Industrial Energy Consumers of America

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 26

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27

Biography .......................................................................................................... 28

Dr. Karen Ehrhardt–Martinez, Research Associate, American Council for an

Energy–Efficient Economy (ACEEE)

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 28

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 30

Biography .......................................................................................................... 63

Dr. J. Michael McQuade, Senior Vice President, Science and Technology,

United Technologies Corporation

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 63

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 65

Biography .......................................................................................................... 73

Discussion

An Integrated Approach to Energy Efficiency ................................................... 73

Executing Best Practices in the Public .............................................................. 76

Page

IV

Consumer Education and Behavior .................................................................... 78

Retrofitting ........................................................................................................... 81

Green Building Standards ................................................................................... 82

Efficiency in the Federal Government ................................................................ 83

Implementing Demonstration Projects ............................................................... 84

Green Infrastructure Funding ............................................................................ 85

High-Performance Building Standards .............................................................. 87

Life Cycle Energy Pricing .................................................................................... 88

Means of Informing Consumers .......................................................................... 90

Encouraging Efficiency at the Various Levels of Government ......................... 91

Closing .................................................................................................................. 94

Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Mr. Steven Chalk, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy ...................... 96

Dr. Karen Ehrhardt–Martinez, Research Associate, American Council for an

Energy–Efficient Economy (ACEEE) .................................................................. 100

Dr. J. Michael McQuade, Senior Vice President, Science and Technology,

United Technologies Corporation ........................................................................ 101

(1)

PUSHING THE EFFICIENCY ENVELOPE: R&D

FOR HIGH–PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS, INDUSTRIES, AND CONSUMERS

TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2009

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

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian Baird

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Pushing the Efficiency Envelope:

R&D for High-Performance Buildings,

Industries, and Consumers

TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2009

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

PURPOSE

On Tuesday, April 28 the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will hold a

hearing to receive testimony on the role of the Department of Energy’s research and

development programs in developing technologies, codes, and standards to enable

deployment of net-zero energy, high-performance buildings and support energy efficiency in domestic industries.

WITNESSES

• Mr. Steven Chalk—Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

• Mr. William J. Coad—President, Coad Engineering Enterprises; Chairman

of the High-Performance Building Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences

• Mr. Paul Cicio—President, Industrial Energy Consumers of America

• Dr. Karen Ehrhardt-Martinez—Research Staff, Economic and Social Analysis Program, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)

• Dr. J. Michael McQuade—Senior Vice President, Science and Technology,

United Technologies Corporation

BACKGROUND

Addressing public concerns about the high costs of energy, the looming threat of

global climate change and the Nation’s economic health requires continual assessment of federal programs designed to mitigate the impacts of various economic sectors, including heavy industry and the built environment. The construction, operation, and demolition of buildings are recognized as major contributing factors to the

increase in energy consumption, emission of greenhouse gases, depletion of valuable

natural resources, and degradation of ecological services such as water supply. The

domestic industrial sector, while making considerable gains in energy and resource

efficiency in recent years, still comprises a significant portion of the country’s emissions, and is more vulnerable than ever to rising costs of energy and raw materials.

To reduce both emissions and waste, and improve the Nation’s overall energy efficiency new advancements in industrial and building technologies must be pursued

by both the public and private sector.

Buildings consume more energy than any other sector of the U.S. economy (40

percent), including transportation (28 percent) and industry (32 percent). From 1980

to 2006, total building energy consumption in the United States increased more

than 46 percent, and is expected to continue to grow at a rate of more than one

percent per year over the next two decades. In addition, almost three-quarters of

our nation’s 81 million buildings were built before 1979. Because buildings are longlived assets, significant improvement of their energy efficiency will require either

retrofits or total replacement. Deployment of high-performance buildings can reduce

the environmental impact of buildings while making them cheaper to operate.

Industry accounts for approximately one-third of all energy consumed in the U.S.

with much of that usage concentrated in heavy industries such as chemical, glass,

cement, and metals production, mining, petroleum refining, food processing, and forVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
4

est and paper products. These industries also have relatively high carbon dioxide

(CO2) emissions. Despite their relatively high energy and emissions intensity, many

industrial firms face competitive pressures that make it difficult to justify the technical and financial risks of R&D projects. Therefore, federal programs are essential

to promote development and deployment of technologies and process improvements

that increase energy efficiency, raise productivity, reduce and reuse wastes, and

trim costs.

Building and Industrial Efficiency Technology Programs at DOE

The importance of energy efficiency and sustainability in the building and industrial sector has been recognized in various federal laws, executive orders, and other

policy instruments in recent years. Among these are the energy policy acts (EPAct)

of 1992 and 2005 (P.L. 102–486 and P.L. 109–58), the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA, P.L. 110–140), and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Through these laws the Department of Energy (DOE) is authorized to carry out a range of activities to increase energy efficiency in a number of

economic sectors.

Within the DOE Building Technologies Program both the High-Performance

Buildings partnerships and Zero-Net Energy Commercial Building Initiative, work

to improve the efficiency of buildings and the equipment, components, and systems

used to control temperature, provide lighting, and plumbing.

A high-performance building as defined by EISA is a building that integrates and

optimizes, on a life cycle basis, all major high-performance attributes, including energy conservation, environment, safety, security, durability, accessibility, cost-benefit, productivity, sustainability, functionality and operational considerations. As

part of this approach, DOE selected building industry groups to form a High-Performance Green Building Consortium that works to accelerate the commercialization

of high-performance building technologies. DOE and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) also created the High-Performance Buildings Database,

which seeks to improve building performance measuring methods by collecting data

on various factors that affect a building’s performance, such as energy, materials,

and land use. It is a unique central repository of detailed information and data on

high-performance, green building projects across the United States and abroad.

The Net-Zero Energy Commercial Building Initiative aims to realize marketable

net-zero energy commercial buildings by 2025. In general, a net-zero energy building

produces as much energy as it uses over the course of a year. The program brings

architects, engineers, builders, contractors, owners, and occupants together to optimize building performance, comfort, and savings through a whole-building approach

to design and construction. The program is divided into three interrelated strategic

areas designed to overcome technical and market barriers: research and development, equipment standards and analysis, and technology validation and market introduction. Key research areas include: commercial lighting solutions; indoor environmental quality; building controls and diagnostics; and space conditioning.

The Department also participates in a variety of activities to aid in standards and

codes development for new building technologies, appliances, and compliance and

design tools. For example the Building Technologies Program’s Building Energy

Codes initiative works with the National Institute of Standards and Technology,

State and local governments, national codes organizations, and industries to help

develop improved national model energy codes. Unlike conventional building codes

which dictate only minimum requirements for construction, ‘‘model’’ building codes

are designed to push the technological envelope of what can be achieved in building

design, construction and operation. Ultimately, there may need to be a comprehensive and unified framework of standards which accounts for the full range of metrics

and benchmarks to maximize building performance. DOE also updates and improves

appliances and equipment standards by testing products and technologies, and ultimately conducting rule-making through a public process.

The DOE Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) seeks to reduce manufacturing

energy intensity and carbon emissions through coordinated research and development with industry, deployment of innovative energy efficient technologies, by providing energy assessments of industrial facilities, and through dissemination of industry best practices. The ITP invests in high-risk, high-value cost-shared R&D

projects to reduce industrial energy use and process waste streams, while stimulating productivity and growth. Projects may be specific to a certain industry (ex:

aluminum smelting), or applicable across a range of industrial applications (ex: fuel

and feedstock flexibility). In addition, the ITP serves as an informational resource

by making available information on other financial assistance and research opportunities, background on both existing and emerging technologies, as well as results of

case studies from past ITP projects. The ITP also sponsors 26 University-Based InVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
5

1 National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC. P. 78.

dustrial Assessment Centers (IACs) that provide no-cost energy assessments primarily to small- and medium-sized manufacturers. By operating through university

engineering programs the IACs serve as a training ground for the next-generation

of energy and industrial engineers.

Pushing the Energy Efficiency Envelope

While these programs continue to demonstrate success in developing technologies

and practices for high-performance buildings and sustainable industries, advancing

the state of technology far beyond what is currently available will require the programs to incorporate entirely new technologies and approaches into their R&D agendas.

For instance, buildings of the future will be designed to operate as a singular system of inter-operable components—a concept that is not possible today. A typical

building is comprised of a complex array of components (wood, metals, glass, concrete, coatings, flooring, sheet rock, insulation, etc.) and subsystems (lighting, heating, ventilation and air conditioning, appliances, landscape maintenance, IT equipment, electrical grid connection, etc.) all of which are developed individually by independent firms that do not often design and test their performance in conjunction

with other components and systems. Even after building completion, systems are

rarely optimized together to improve overall energy efficiency and environmental

performance. The inefficiencies attributable to this fragmentation of the building

components and systems, and the lack of monitoring and verification of a building

performance, point to a critical need for a more integrated approach to building design, operation, and technology development. An approach that couples buildings

sciences, architecture, and information technologies could lead to entirely new ‘‘selftuning’’ buildings with subsystems that are able to continuously communicate with

each other and respond to a range of factors. Wide-scale deployment of these types

of net-zero energy high-performance buildings will likely require federal programs

to play a larger coordinating role in the development of the common technologies,

codes, and standards.

Pushing the efficiency envelope will also require engaging the social sciences in

providing a much greater understanding of how people and organizations make energy-related decisions. Individual and collective behavior plays a critical role in efficiency, not only through direct demand for energy, but also by creating or failing

to create market demand for more energy efficient technologies. Consumers make

these decisions every day when weighing options such as what vehicle or appliance

to purchase, whether to drive or take public transportation, what light bulbs to install, or whether to shut down their computers at night. In aggregate these decisions have an impact on the supply and demand curves that drive both energy

prices and, ultimately, energy technology development.

In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) produced a report on ‘‘Decision

Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities.’’ In

the chapter on Environmentally Significant Individual Behavior, the NAS panel

states: ‘‘A basic understanding of how information, incentives, and various kinds of

constraints and opportunities, in combination with individuals’ values, beliefs, and

social contexts, shape consumer choice in complex real-world contexts would provide

an essential knowledge base for understanding, anticipating, and developing policies

for affecting environmentally significant consumer behavior.’’ 1 Integrating social

science research into the larger energy R&D field will provide greater insight into

the best ways to convey information to consumers and help them make decisions

regarding energy efficiency and conservation. For instance, understanding consumer

behavior will help in development of a whole building approach to design and operation of building systems, where components are integrated to reduce energy consumption through displaying information to occupants.

6

Chairman BAIRD. This hearing will now come to order.

I want to welcome Members of the Subcommittee and our distinguished panelists to today’s hearing on advancing the state of

science and technology for energy efficiency in buildings and industrial sectors.

Energy efficiency and conservation will have the greatest nearterm impact of any approach to our energy security and global

overheating problems. I don’t refer to it as warming or climate

change. It is lethal overheating and ocean acidification, and if we

start calling it by what it is, we will be more effective at combating

it, I believe. Today’s buildings consume 40 percent of our country’s

energy, more than any other sector of the U.S. economy. Together

the building and industrial sectors are responsible for almost threequarters of U.S. energy consumption. Given that, it makes sense

that we would start there to try to reduce that consumption, and

our most rapid way of stimulating the economy, reducing spending,

reducing ocean acidification and global warming gases is through

conservation, in my judgment.

As many of you know, this committee oversees a broad range of

activities designed to push the energy technology envelope, including R&D programs through the Department of Energy, programs

that support the development of codes and standards that are vital

to ensuring the performance and inter-operability of energy technologies.

The DOE Building Technologies Program, and within this, the

activities of the High-Performance Buildings and Net-Zero Energy

Commercial Buildings initiative, support advanced technology development for buildings and their associated equipment, material

and systems. The Industrial Technologies Program works to reduce

energy intensity and carbon emissions of industry through costshared R&D, energy auditing and dissemination of best practices.

While these programs have proven successful over the years, we

still have a very long way to go in maximizing the Nation’s efficiency. Pushing the efficiency envelope will require us to combine

the expertise of multiple disciplines or look in entirely new directions for scientific and technological insight.

For example, coupling building sciences, architecture and information technologies can lead to entirely new self-tuning buildings

with subsystems that continuously communicate with each other

and respond to a range of environmental factors. We should also

enlist the expertise found in the social sciences to provide greater

understanding of how people and organizations make energy-related decisions. Insight into how consumers receive and react to information will be critical for progress in areas such as the development of a whole-building approach to design and operation of building systems.

The Committee has a long and distinguished history in this area.

As the Congress moves forward with climate and energy legislation, we will continue our efforts to assess the Federal Government’s role in building and industrial R&D and standards development and to lay the groundwork for new activities if needed.

With that, I look forward to working with you all and exploring

ways in which federal programs can be improved to support cleanVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
7

er, more efficient and sustainable buildings and industry in the

United States.

I now recognize my distinguished colleague and friend from

South Carolina, our Ranking Member, Mr. Inglis, for his opening

statement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRIAN BAIRD

I want to welcome Members of the Subcommittee and our distinguished panelists

to today’s hearing on advancing the state of science and technology for energy efficiency in the buildings and industrial sectors.

Energy efficiency and conservation will have the greatest near-term impact of any

approach to our energy security and global over heating problems. Today’s buildings

consume 40 percent of our country’s energy—more than any other sector of the U.S.

economy. And together, the building and industrial sectors are responsible for almost three quarters of U.S. energy consumption.

As many of you know this committee oversees a broad range of activities designed

to push the energy technology envelope, including R&D programs of the Department

of Energy, and programs to support the development of codes and standards that

are vital to ensuring the performance and inter-operability of energy technologies.

The DOE Building Technologies Program and, within this, the activities of the

High-Performance Buildings and Net-Zero Energy Commercial Buildings initiatives,

support advanced technology development for buildings, and their associated equipment, materials, and systems.

The Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) works to reduce energy intensity and

carbon emissions of industry through cost-shared R&D, energy auditing, and dissemination of best practices.

While these programs have proven successful over the years, we still have a very

long way to go in maximizing the Nation’s efficiency. Pushing the efficiency envelope

will require us to combine the expertise of multiple disciplines, or look in entirely

new directions for scientific and technological insight.

For instance, coupling buildings sciences, architecture, and information technologies together can lead to entirely new ‘‘self-tuning’’ buildings with subsystems

that continuously communicate with each other and respond to a range of environmental factors.

We should also enlist the expertise found in the social sciences to provide greater

understanding of how people and organizations make energy-related decisions. Insight into how consumers receive and react to information will be critical for

progress in areas such as the development of a whole-building approach to design

and operation of building systems.

This committee has a long and distinguished history in this area. As the Congress

moves forward with climate and energy legislation we will continue our efforts to

assess the Federal Government’s role in building and industrial R&D and standards

development, and lay the groundwork for new activities if needed.

With that, I look forward to working with you all in exploring ways in which federal programs can be improved to support cleaner, more efficient, and sustainable

buildings and industries in the U.S.

I now yield to my distinguished colleague from South Carolina, our Ranking Member, Mr. Inglis, for his opening statement.

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding

this hearing. When it comes to words, I am convinced that less is

more and people who write well can express themselves in a few

words. If you give me 30 minutes to speak, I don’t need to do any

preparation, but limit me to two minutes and I have got to really

prepare.

You know, when we are blessed with much, we can get by with

a lot of inefficiencies. Electricity is cheap so we leave the lights on.

Material is cheap so we build big when we might actually get more

utility out of small. Gas is cheap so we bought guzzlers instead of

sippers. And so the challenge for us is to figure out how to get more

utility out of buildings and get building codes that actually will imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
8

prove efficiencies and deliver for us more by having less, less use

and less waste.

My wife and I have five kids and I designed the house with the

help of an architect, the house that we live in, and quite often I

am thinking if I could just have made it smaller because you know

your possessions come to possess you and so all those porches that

need to be washed at least twice a year, man, that was a bad idea.

All that space that needs to be heated, gee, couldn’t we have

thought of a better way to get that job done. So I am excited about

hearing about some of the technology that may drive better building codes and better opportunities for us to get more out of less,

and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BOB INGLIS

Thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.

When it comes to words, I’m convinced that less is more. People who write well

can express themselves with few words. Give me thirty minutes to speak and I’ll

need no preparation. Limit me to two minutes and I’ll have to plan carefully what

to say.

When we’re blessed with much, we can get by with a lot of inefficiencies. Electricity is cheap, so we leave the lights on. Material is cheap, so we build big, when

we might get more utility out of small. Gas is cheap, so we’ve bought guzzlers instead of sippers.

But climate science, oil price hikes, and economic hardships remind us that we

need more efficient practices. Today, we’re here to specifically talk about how to encourage energy efficiencies in one of our most energy intensive sectors—buildings.

While I support the government taking proactive measures to improve building

codes and promote R&D programs that result in the deployment of net-zero energy,

high-performance buildings, I think the answer lies in economics.

Attaching a price to carbon would be a built-in incentive for construction of more

efficient spaces. Industries, seeking to save on costs and appeal to conscious consumers, will revamp wasteful practices. Tenants will seek space that promises a reduction in energy costs due to efficient lighting, heating and cooling appliances, and

utilities. We’ll also witness improvements outside the walls of these buildings. Demand will rise for efficient products, and jobs will be created in meeting that demand. Reduced fuel consumption will translate to increased national security, and

efficient energy production will mean cleaner air.

This is the potential of a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Yes, there’s a place to talk

about developing positive codes and standards, but the real incentive lies in the

market, not in regulation. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to

hearing from our witnesses today.

Chairman BAIRD. I thank Mr. Inglis. If other Members wish to

submit additional opening statements, your statements will be

added to the record at this point.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good Morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing on the role

of the Department of Energy in research and development (R&D) for high-performance buildings, industries, and consumers.

As Congress considers changes to our energy policy, we must consider ways to cut

back on our emissions and improve our energy efficiency. The two sectors we are

discussing today—building and heavy industry—are the largest consumers of energy

in the country and significantly contribute to our greenhouse gas emissions. Discovering and developing ways to improve the energy efficiency of these two sectors will

make major strides towards reducing our emissions while creating thousands of

new, high-paying jobs around the country. I am seeing the results of investment in

energy efficiency in my district in Southern Illinois. Two counties and the City of

Belleville received over $4.5 million in funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to invest in energy efficiency projects. This money is putting people

back to work while improving the efficiency of our buildings.

9

Investing in long-term, high cost R&D projects is not feasible for many of our

heavy industries or building and contracting companies, particularly in this difficult

economic climate. For this reason, I applaud the efforts of the Department of Energy

to promote and accelerate new technology, methods, and tools to improve building

and industrial energy efficiency. I am interested to hear more from Mr. Chalk about

how Congress and this subcommittee in particular can continue to support DOE in

these efforts.

I would also like to hear from our witnesses how these R&D projects can become

commercially viable and widely dispersed across our domestic manufacturers and

builders. In particular, I want to know what steps DOE and Congress can take to

ensure this research results in sector-wide changes in building and heavy industry

practices across the country.

Making these changes marketable to the American consumer will also be an issue

to consider moving forward. I would like to hear from our witnesses regarding the

incentives or other programs they believe might be necessary to encourage contractors, builders, and consumers to choose high-performance buildings or products

made by high-performance manufacturers.

I welcome our panel of witnesses, and I look forward to their testimony.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

High-performance buildings are those that are designed with environmental conservation in mind.

Solar paneled roofs; natural light; green roofs; sustainable construction materials:

all are examples of architectural elements that do good, rather than harm, to the

environment.

In Dallas, the Trinity River Audubon Center is a shining example of such a structure. Its green features include a vegetated roof, rainwater collection system, energy

efficient systems, and recycled materials.

Audubon serves as the gateway to the 6,000 acre Great Trinity Forest.

As the largest urban hardwood forest in the United States, the Greater Trinity

Forest supports a diverse community of plant and animal species, and contains a

unique mixture of bottomland hardwoods, wetlands and grasslands.

Trinity River Audubon Center is the first building constructed by the City of Dallas Park and Recreation Department that is certified by Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design Green Building Rating SystemΤΜ.

The Center was actually built upon a part of land that is a remediated Brownfield

site: the Deepwood Landfill.

The Deepwood Landfill comprised 1.5 million tons of construction debris illegally

dumped over a 15-year period.

With the goal of returning this land to nature for the use of future generations

and as a site of the Trinity River Audubon Center, the devised plan consolidated

the waste into capped rolling hills replanted with tall prairie grass and hardwood

trees once dominant on the Texas Blackland Prairie.

The permeable paving around the area and preservation of the Trinity River

marsh helps with stormwater control. The Center even harvests rainfall to be used

as irrigation. It has installed low-flow toilets to conserve water.

High-efficiency heating, ventilation, air conditioning and electrical systems help

minimize the Center’s carbon footprint.

The building’s use of regional construction materials minimizes harmful emissions

generated from transporting materials from the place of extraction to the manufacturing plant to the consumer.

The Trinity River Audubon Center is comprised of many local building materials,

as well as cypress siding certified by the Forest Stewardship Council; recycled-content materials; rapidly renewable resources such as bamboo, wool, cotton, straw,

wheat and cork; and low-volatile-emitting materials.

For the concrete, all the gravel and sand was extracted from local quarries.

Fly ash, a by-product from coal plants that would normally go into a landfill, was

used as a partial substitute for the cement content.

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to point out the Trinity River Audubon Center as

a model of the architectural designs that this committee seeks to encourage.

With some thought and effort, ‘‘green’’ buildings can be built and are a beautiful

addition to our communities.

I believe that it is appropriate for the Department of Energy to support research

into green building technologies.

10

Current programs continue to demonstrate success in developing technologies and

practices for high-performance buildings and sustainable industries.

I support advancing the state of technology beyond what is currently available by

funding to incorporate entirely new technologies and approaches into their research

agendas.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your focus on this important subject. I want to welcome today’s panel of witnesses, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman BAIRD. At this point I would like to introduce our witnesses. I unfortunately need to express some disappointment and

I am reluctant to do so but it is necessary. The Committee has a

practice of asking that testimony be provided in advance of hearings so that we can study it and know what is happening. It is a

reasonable request, especially given that we anticipate that our

witnesses sort of by definition will have expertise in the field.

When I am hiring staff, I sit them down with a challenge, an issue

they have to deal with, and they have two hours to write a report

to me, two hours. They are by and large brave young people and

with the wizard of the Internet they are able to do some remarkable things. Hence, when we give several weeks’ notice of testimony

requests and it doesn’t come and when it is coming from an agency

of the Administration, we are particularly disappointed. That is the

case today. The energy efficiency testimony we were asking for

from the Department of Energy arrived about 20 minutes ago. It

is disappointing that the Department of Energy either does not

have its act together well enough to provide this in, I would imagine it should be virtually instantaneous manner, but certainly several weeks notice is more than adequate and it is either a sign of

inefficiency or disrespect, neither of which are acceptable to this

committee.

With that, I introduce Mr. Steven Chalk, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at

the U.S. Department of Energy. Mr. Paul Cicio is the President of

the Industrial Energy Consumers of America. By the way, I should

underscore my following comments. All the other panelists, we

want to thank you for getting your information to us in a timely,

informative manner so the initial comments were directed unfortunately at the Department of Energy. The rest of the panelists were

most informative and prompt in their response and we are grateful

for that including Mr. Coad as well. I didn’t mean to jump over

you. Karen Ehrhardt-Martinez, did I say that right? Ehrhardt?

Dr. EHRHARDT-MARTINEZ. Ehrhardt-Martinez.

Chairman BAIRD. I should have known Ehrhardt.

Dr. EHRHARDT-MARTINEZ. Just like Amelia.

Chairman BAIRD. I figured that, the pioneering aviator. Dr.

Karen Ehrhardt-Martinez is a Research Associate at the Economic

and Social Analysis Program at the American Council for EnergyEfficient Economy. Dr. Michael McQuade is Senior Vice President

of Science and Technology at United Technologies Corporation. At

this point I would like to recognize my friend, the gentleman from

Missouri, Representative Russ Carnahan, to introduce our final

witness.

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to sit in

on this subcommittee today. I have got the honor to present a native of St. Louis, Dr. William Coad. He is President of Coad Engineering Enterprises. He is a consulting principal and Past ChairVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
11

man and CEO of the McClure Corporation. For 17 years he has

been an Affiliate Professor at Washington University in St. Louis

teaching graduate courses in mechanical engineering. He is also

currently a member of the National Institute of Building Sciences.

He has served as Chairman of the High-Performance Buildings

Task Force, which the initial report led to the formulation of the

High-Performance Building Council under his leadership. I have

been honored to chair the bipartisan High-Performance Buildings

Caucus within the Congress and they have been very instrumental

working with our caucus. So I appreciate especially him being here,

his expertise nationally, but I am pleased with his roots from St.

Louis.

Chairman BAIRD. I thank Mr. Carnahan, and thank you for your

leadership on the caucus. Obviously you have recognized this well

early on and your input has been very, very valuable. I thank the

gentleman. At this point we will hear from the witnesses. I have

been corrected. Actually, Mr. Chalk, apparently we had your testimony at 8:30 last night, still inadequate and certainly not very

helpful to me as I had already retired for the evening to read the

other stacks of material I get. But we will start with Mr. Chalk

and then proceed. Each witness will have five minutes and then we

will proceed with questioning for the panel. We have also been

joined by Dr. Ehlers, the gentleman from Michigan. Thank you, Dr.

Ehlers.

With that, Mr. Chalk, please enlighten us with your testimony

and thank you again for being here.

STATEMENT OF MR. STEVEN CHALK, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND

RENEWABLE ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Mr. CHALK. Thank you, Chairman Baird, and no good excuses for

the late testimony. We will make sure that doesn’t happen again.

Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Inglis and other Members of

the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of Energy’s Building Technologies Program and the enormous potential for energy savings in the building sector. I commend you for holding this hearing. I look forward to working with

you to continually innovate and invest in energy efficiency.

Energy security and climate change, or global overheating, if you

will, are two of the most important challenges of our time and require urgent attention. It is clear that there is no single solution

to the problem. The challenge is so massive and urgent that it requires multiple simultaneous responses and solutions. In 2008, our

nation’s 114 million households and more than 74 billion square

feet of commercial floor space accounted for nearly 40 percent of

our primary energy consumption, 40 percent of our greenhouse

gases, but it is also about 70 percent of our electricity consumption.

For every gain in building energy efficiency, there is a corresponding reduction in power plant generation and greenhouse

gases and there is a greater conservation of natural resources, particularly water, which is consumed in large quantities in power

plants today.

Today, with existing technologies and knowledge, we can cost-effectively increase U.S. residential building efficiency by 30 percent.

12

In temperate parts of the country, it is possible to increase efficiency by 40 percent with little additional first costs, and really no

additional costs at all when savings for utility bills are factored in.

Reaching these efficiency levels, particularly through means such

as stimulating technology adoption via building codes, is one marker on the path to reaching DOE’s ultimate goal, which is the widespread construction of affordable net-zero-energy buildings or buildings that produce more energy than they consume over the course

of a year. The Department’s building technologies portfolio is

aligned to develop the techniques and tools necessary to make affordable residential and commercial buildings net-zero energy by

2020 and 2025, respectively.

I would like to use my time today to highlight some of the ongoing initiatives that help us reach those net-zero-energy goals. Our

Commercial Buildings Initiative is the umbrella initiative that will

guide and coordinate public and private partnerships to advance

market adoption of net-zero-energy commercial buildings. In support of this initiative, we are focusing on building system integration, indoor environmental quality, control strategies, diagnostics

and space conditioning.

In the area of energy codes and standards, the Department is

working very closely with the American Society of Refrigeration

and Air Conditioning Engineers, or ASHRAE, on its standard commercial building code. In 2007, DOE challenged ASHRAE to upgrade the 2004 standard 90.1 by 30 percent, to make it 30 percent

more stringent by 2010. ASHRAE responded positively and is on

track to achieve that 30 percent greater efficiency.

In addition, we work with the International Code Council on the

residential standards and we have a similar effort with the ICC,

or the International Code Council, to achieve 30 percent better efficiency than the 2006 residential code and we want to achieve that

by 2012, and we are already halfway there. The 2009 code that was

just released is 15 percent better than the 2006 version.

The Department’s Appliance and Commercial Equipment Standard Program develops test procedures and the minimum energy

conservation standards for residential appliances and commercial

equipment. These standards save consumers money and energy,

spur innovation and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save

water resources. President Obama shows interest and expectations

for this program. Just 17 days after he took office, he visited DOE,

issued a memorandum requesting that the Department take all

necessary steps to expeditiously finalize the appliance standards

rule-making in process. The Department is committed to fulfilling

the President’s request.

As I wrap up, I want to emphasize the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act places significant focus on buildings and building

energy codes. The Act provides $3.2 billion for energy efficiency and

conservation block grants and for such activities as endorsing

building energy codes, conducting audits, establishing financial incentives and installing energy efficiency upgrades. The Department

is gearing up now to provide technical assistance to States to implement these new codes and to enforce and evaluate compliance.

The Department is committed to improving energy efficiency

through innovative R&D, public outreach and collaborative partVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
13

1 EPACT 05 was codified into law as Pub. L. No. 109–58; EISA as Pub. L. No. 110–140.

2DOE, 2008 Building Energy Data Book. 3 A net-zero energy building is a residential or commercial building with greatly reduced needs

for energy through efficiency gains (60 to 70 percent less than conventional practice), with the

balance of energy needs supplied by renewable technologies. 4DOE, 2008 Building Technologies Multi-Year Program Plan, http://www.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/publications/pdfs/corporate/myp08complete.pdf

nerships. We look forward to working with Congress to continue to

realize short-term energy savings and cost savings as well as a

long-term goal of achieving affordable net-zero-energy residential

and commercial buildings.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning,

and I will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chalk follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN CHALK

Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Inglis, Members of the Subcommittee, thank

you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the U.S. Department

of Energy’s (DOE) Building Technologies Program activities and the enormous potential for energy savings in the buildings sector. I have included, as an appendix

to this testimony, an update on the Department’s progress in implementing sections

of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 05) and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), as requested by the Subcommittee.1

In 2008, the Nation’s 114 million households and more than 74 billion square feet

of commercial floor space accounted for nearly 40 percent of U.S. primary energy

consumption, as well as:

• 73 percent of electricity and 34 percent of natural gas consumption,

• Energy bills totaling $418 billion, and

• 39 percent of Carbon Dioxide, 18 percent of Nitrogen Oxide, and 55 percent

of Sulfur Dioxide emissions.

Additionally, construction and renovation accounted for nine percent of GDP, and

eight million people were employed in the sector.2

The Department is committed to improving energy efficiency in buildings from advances in building technologies and systems, to energy codes for new construction,

to weatherization retrofits and promotion of efficient appliances. The Administration

continues to renew and build upon these efforts. I would like to give a broad overview of the Building Technologies Program and highlight some of its ongoing activities.

DOE’s Building Technologies Program

The Building Technologies Program develops technologies, techniques, and tools,

as well as minimum performance standards, for making residential and commercial

buildings more energy efficient, productive, and affordable. The program’s current

goal is to create technologies and design approaches that enable net-zero energy

buildings3 at low incremental cost by 2020 for residential buildings and 2025 for

commercial buildings. The program expects that efficiency technologies and designs

will have application to buildings constructed before 2025, resulting in incremental

reductions in energy use throughout the sector.4

The research and development (R&D) activities of DOE’s Building Technologies

Program are fully aligned toward enabling the widespread construction of net-zero

energy residential and commercial buildings by 2020 and 2025, respectively. The

Commercial Buildings Integration subprogram conducts systems integration R&D,

works with national energy alliances on best practices, engages national accounts

with research technical assistance to achieve deep energy retrofits and design of

high-performance new building prototypes, and provides targeted mass procurement

and technology solutions to the industry.

The Residential Integration subprogram works through the Building America

public-private partnership to develop high-performance residential sub-systems and

whole house energy improvements, and testing them on a community scale. In addition, the Residential Integration subprogram is implementing the Builders Challenge to deploy the results of the R&D activity, and is implementing DOE’s portion

of the Home Performance with Energy Star program to spur deep retrofits in homes

throughout the Nation.

14

5More information is available on each of these programs at the following links: Builders

Challenge: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/builderschallenge.html; Building Energy

Codes: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energycodes.html; EnergySmart Hospitals: http:/

/www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energysmarthospitals/; EnergySmart Schools: http://www1.

eere.energy.gov/buildings/energysmartschools.html; ENERGY STAR: http://www1.eere. energy.gov/buildings/energystar.html; Solar Decathlon: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

solar¥decathlon.html; Utility Solar Water Heating Initiative (USH2O): http://

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ush2o/

Equipment and component research is designed to fill identified gaps in technical

performance and/or cost reduction needed to fully achieve the net zero energy cost

and performance goals of the Commercial and Residential subprograms. Component

and equipment research is conducted on Solid State Lighting; Heating, Ventilation,

Air Conditioning, Refrigeration and Water Heating; Solar Heating and Cooling;

Thermal Envelope and Windows; and Design Tools.

The Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Program develops test procedures and energy conservation standards for residential appliances and commercial and industrial equipment. The Program develops regulations that manufacturers must adhere to in making energy efficiency claims as well as in manufacturing

products for sale in the United States. These regulations apply to products manufactured in the United States as well as those imported into the United States.

The Department’s Building Technologies Program and its partners strive to integrate energy efficient technologies into the marketplace through technology validation and market introduction activities such as Builders Challenge, Building Energy

Codes, EnergySmart Hospitals, EnergySmart Schools, ENERGY STAR, Solar Decathlon, and the Utility Solar Water Heating Initiative (USH2O).5

I would like to underscore certain successes within Building Technologies Program, from net-zero energy commercial buildings to efficient appliances for consumers that have contributed to technological advancements and significant energy

savings.

Commercial Buildings Initiative

Launched in August 2008, the Net-Zero Energy Commercial Building Initiative

(CBI) is the umbrella initiative that will guide and coordinate public and private

partnerships to advance the development and market adoption of net-zero energy

commercial buildings (NZEBs). CBI works with researchers at DOE National Laboratories, as well as with public and private partners, to achieve the goal of marketable NZEBs by 2025.

In support of the CBI, DOE’s key commercial buildings research includes whole

building system integration, indoor environmental quality, control strategies and

diagnostics, space conditioning, and process and miscellaneous equipment. Another

major area is the development of technology solutions for achieving 30–50 percent

savings at the building system level (lighting, heating, and cooling). The first technology solution, Commercial Lighting Solutions web tool design aid, launches in

May 2009. We expect that designs for retail building that use this tool could save

30–40 percent on energy use compared with ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–2004.

Working with industry representatives and partners is critical to achieving the

goal of marketable net-zero energy commercial buildings by 2025. We are engaged

with building industry leaders through energy alliances and research partnerships

to move us toward that goal. The key CBI alliances and partnerships include:

• Commercial Building Energy Alliances—Informal associations of commercial

building owners and operators who work to significantly reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions. Currently, alliances exist for retail, commercial real estate, and hospitals.

• Commercial Building National Accounts (NAs)—Companies and organizations

partnering with DOE to conduct cost-shared research, development, and deployment. NAs will construct buildings that achieve savings of 50 percent or

retrofit buildings that achieve 30 percent savings above ASHRAE/IESNA

Standard 90.1–2004, and deploy this knowledge through their portfolios. In

FY 2008, 23 National Account partners agreed to work with DOE. Another

100 National Accounts are planned in FY 2009.

• High-Performance Green Building Consortium—DOE-selected building industry groups that work with DOE to accelerate the commercialization of highperformance building technologies by disseminating information on new technologies within the commercial building community. A high-performance commercial building offers improved energy, economic, and environmental perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
15

6Source: 1975 to 2005 energy use—DOE refrigerator standards rule-making data developed

by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; 2015 projection—EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook

2005; number of households—Buildings Energy Data Book Table 2.1.1.

formance compared to standard practice. See the appendix for progress on related sections of EISA.

Building Energy Codes and Standards

The Department works closely with the American Society of Refrigeration and

Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) on its standard 90.1 and with the International Code Council (ICC) on its International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)

in response to Title III of the Energy Conservation and Production Act, as amended

(42 U.S.C. 6831 et seq.).

In 2007, DOE challenged ASHRAE to upgrade standard 90.1 to be 30 percent

more stringent than its 2004 edition by 2010 and has been actively engaged in the

ASHRAE standards process by providing technical assistance to support the upgrade of standard 90.1. ASHRAE reports that it is on track to achieve the 30 percent goal.

The Department has also joined many stakeholders in the International Energy

Conservation Code process to upgrade the 2006 edition of the IECC by 30 percent

by 2012. Significant progress has been made in the 2009 edition, upgrading it by

about 15 percent. The Department is an active participant in the codes development

process by providing engineering, economic and energy analyses of improvements to

the code as well as specific code proposals.

Appliance Standards

In the 1970s, there was a debate over whether to set energy conservation standards for consumer products, including refrigerators. Many were concerned that

standards would be too expensive to meet and that they would lead to higher prices

for consumers. The Appliance Standards Program was established with the passage

of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), which designated test

procedures, conservation targets, and labeling requirements for certain major household appliances. The Act has been amended several times, changing the conservation targets to mandatory standards and adding many additional products to eventually include a broad range of residential and commercial products. As amended,

the appliance standards requirements are among the broadest and most stringent

of any country in the world. Once the standards passed, manufacturers put their

engineers to work developing new products to meet the standards. Manufacturers

were successful and developed new, energy efficient products that met the requirements.

For example, today, refrigerators cost less than they did before DOE’s ENERGY

STAR, research, and energy conservation standards programs. Yet, today’s refrigerators are larger, have more features and use less than one-third as much energy

as those earlier designs. DOE estimates DOE’s programs have contributed to a decrease in refrigerator energy consumption on the order of 0.25 quads compared

1975, even though the number of refrigerators grew by 35 percent. This energy savings is equivalent to the amount produced by 58 coal power plants.6

President Obama showed his interest and expectations for the Appliance Standards Program just 17 days after his inauguration. The President visited DOE and

set out his expectations for the Appliance Standards Program in a memorandum to

Secretary Chu. The memorandum requests that the Department take all necessary

steps to finalize legally required energy conservation standards rule-makings as expeditiously as possible and consistent with all applicable judicial and statutory

deadlines. The Department is committed to fulfilling the President’s request, and

the Secretary has reinforced the importance of this program through expressing his

support in ensuing public statements.

Builders Challenge and Home Performance with ENERGY STAR

The goal of Builders Challenge is to build 220,000 new high-performance homes

by 2012. These homes exceed the energy efficiency of ENERGY STAR Homes by approximately 20 percent. To date, more than 1,000 homes have been qualified as

meeting the Builders Challenge and 200 builders have agreed to build to meet the

Builders Challenge in the future.

Home Performance with ENERGY STAR (HPwES) focuses on significantly increasing energy efficiency in existing homes. HPwES promotes improvements

through home performance contracting, which includes comprehensive whole-house

assessments. HPwES is implemented by utilities, State energy offices, and not-forVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
16

7See Section 410 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 8See http://www.energycodes.gov/news/arra/

profits that recruit and train home improvement contractors. Qualified contractors

conduct a comprehensive assessment using diagnostic equipment. Based on this assessment, contractors offer a prioritized list of solutions; they then complete the

needed renovations or work closely with other participating contractors. Common

improvements suggested are sealing air leaks and ductwork, adding insulation, improving the heating-cooling system, and upgrading lighting. To date, more than

50,000 assessments and 15,000 installations have been completed since 2002.

Buildings Efficiency and Economic Recovery

The Department’s Building Technologies Program is planning to address research

focused on the systems design, integration and control of buildings for both new and

existing buildings with Recovery Act funding. This project will move beyond component-only driven research and address the interactions among the many different

aspects of buildings, approaching it as a whole, in order to progress development

of integrated, high-performance buildings. Buildings need to be designed, built, operated, and maintained as an integrated system in order to achieve the greatest potential of energy efficient and eventually net zero-energy buildings. High-performance buildings will apply technology to improve the internal built environment

through managing energy use, improving comfort, safety and environmental factors

through integrating all the various systems of the building.

The Recovery Act places significant focus on buildings and building energy codes.7

The Act provides $3.2 billion for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants

for such activities as the enforcement of building energy codes; conducting building

audits; establishing financial incentives for efficiency; and installing LEDs. It provides $5 billion for Weatherization assistance and $3.1 billion for the State Energy

Program.

In response to Recovery Act requirements, the overwhelming majority of governors have advised the Secretary that they have take actions to ensure, within the

authority of the governor’s office, the implementation of the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code or equivalent for residential buildings, and Standard 90.1–

2007 for commercial buildings. They have provided similar assurances that the state

will implement a plan to achieve 90 percent compliance with their new codes by

2017. The relevant State Energy Program solicitation has been issued, and comprehensive applications from the states are due May 12, 2009.8

DOE is gearing up to provide technical assistance to the states to implement

these new codes and to implement, enforce, and evaluate compliance.

The Department is committed to improving energy efficiency through innovative

R&D, public outreach, and collaborative partnerships. Improved energy efficiency in

buildings generally is a fast, low risk, and economical way to reduce energy consumption and associated environmental emissions, including greenhouse gases. We

look forward to working with Congress to continue to realize short-term energy and

cost savings, and to contribute to the goal of achieving net-zero energy residential

and commercial buildings in the future.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I am happy to answer any questions.

17

18

19

20

BIOGRAPHY FOR STEVEN CHALK

Steven Chalk is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) at the U.S. Department of Energy. In this

capacity, Mr. Chalk is responsible for managing the programs, staff and policies of

EERE and interfacing with constituent groups in the efficiency and renewable energy sectors.

Mr. Chalk recently held the position of EERE’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable Energy, where he was responsible for the management of the government’s

research, development, and commercialization efforts in solar, wind, geothermal,

biomass, and hydrogen technologies. Mr. Chalk also previously managed EERE’s

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Program, the Solar Energy Technologies Program and Buildings Technologies Program.

In September 2008, Steve was honored with a Service to America Medal in the

Science and Environment category. This award recognized his management of several innovative clean energy projects, as well as his leadership in the Federal Government’s efforts to expand the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency, particularly in the communities of New Orleans and Greensburg, Kansas.

While leading the Solar Energy Technologies Program, Mr. Chalk was responsible

for planning and implementing the Solar America Initiative, which aims to make

solar technologies cost competitive by 2015. In the building technologies area, Mr.

Chalk led DOE’s efforts toward net zero energy homes and buildings. The portfolio

includes component research such as solid state lighting, market transformation activities such as EnergyStar, and appliance standards regulations. Before this, Mr.

Chalk led the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative where he oversaw development

of a five-year, $1.2 billion research investment in hydrogen production, delivery,

storage, and fuel cells. This portfolio also includes hydrogen safety, codes and standards, and education activities. In his early career at DOE, Mr. Chalk managed technology development programs in fuel cells, diesel emissions control, and materials

for DOE’s advanced automotive technology office. Steve also worked in the nuclear

energy field where he oversaw DOE test programs for tritium production. Steve

started his career with the Navy developing propellants and explosives for conventional weapons.

Mr. Chalk holds a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering from the University of Maryland and a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the

George Washington University.

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Coad.

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM J. COAD, PRESIDENT, COAD ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, AND CHAIR, HIGH-PERFORMANCE BUILDING COUNCIL, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BUILDING SCIENCES

Mr. COAD. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member and other Members of the Subcommittee, as Mr. Carnahan said, my name is Bill

Coad. I am a practicing mechanical engineer. I have been designing

heating, refrigerating and air conditioning systems and electrical

systems for large buildings for my entire career.

I am here this morning representing the National Institute of

Building Sciences, acronym NIBS. NIBS is a private organization.

It is not for profit. It was founded by this Congress in 1974 to coordinate the improvement in buildings and building systems in the

United States for both public and private buildings. Our annual report goes to the President of the United States and to the Congress

and you all will receive this year’s report in another couple of

weeks.

I would like to introduce Henry Green. Henry is the President

of NIBS. He joined us in 2008, last year. Prior to that he was the

president of the International Code Council, who is the developer

of the International Building Code, which is used almost universally in the United States in our private-sector buildings. And

when this Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, in that

21

1Mr. Coad asked that ‘‘run out’’ be changed to read ‘‘peak.’’ See attached June 19, 2009 letter.

Act, section 914, they mandated that NIBS should form a council

or a group to try to coordinate all the standards that were available

in the United States, all our consensus standards, and look at

those standards and see if we had the information in any one place

that we could use to expand the concept of high-performance buildings.

Now, we have heard some different definitions of high-performance buildings but I would like to give you just a very quick slant

on what a high-performance building really is. As Mr. Chalk said,

there are a lot of things going on out here in energy and the environment but it really boils down to one simple matter. It has to do

with economics and the intrinsic link between economics and energy. The foundation for any economy is human productivity, and

when this country was founded, human productivity had been pretty flat for hundreds of years and something happened in 1775

when George Washington was trying to stay out of the way of the

British, something was happening on the other side of the world,

the other side of the Atlantic. James Watt perfected his steam engine in 1775. He was able for the first time to take heat and turn

it into work, and work for mankind and increase his productivity.

Within about 100 years, that steam engine was driving locomotives

across the continents. We had the steam engines in factories driving line shafts, manufacturing for people. One steam engine and

one person could do the work of about 500 people. That is productivity and that happened through the entire 19th century, kept increasing productivity, and guess what happened? The economy

kept getting stronger and stronger. In the 20th century, we really

switched into high gear. Today we have machines to light the darkness, to preserve our food, to carry us wherever we want to go at

any speed, exceeding the speed of sound, to refrigerate and preserve our food, to cook our food, to clean our house, to run our factories. It is all—every one of these things increases human productivity, keep our records, do our calculations, and today we have—

because of this productivity, we have the strongest economy that

mankind has ever had before.

Anybody 100 years ago couldn’t possibly have predicted what was

going to happen with this kind of productivity and we can be very

proud of ourselves, but guess what? We made a little mistake.

When we started building these machines that our total economy

depends upon, there was a lot of fossil energy around. First we did

it with wood and then we needed the wood for other things so we

turned to coal, then oil in about the mid-19th century, and these

are all fossil fuels. These fossil fuels took millions of years to generate into the Earth. Now, we have only been using them for about

150 years and we are using them at an exponentially increasing

rate. It doesn’t take anything beyond high school mathematics to

realize if you have a limited resource and you are using it at a continually exponentially increasing rate, some day it is going to run

out, and guess what happens? That some day—world production of

oil is predicted now to run out1 before the year 2010. That is next

year. So we are in trouble. We are in big trouble with our economy

because without the energy, we can’t support the economy to keep

22

the world running the way it is running. We are talking about the

end of man on Earth if we can’t support our economy.

Now, what can we do about that? That is why we are here today.

This committee, this subcommittee is here handling what I think

is the most important problem that this Congress and this country

faces today, and that is the fact that we are going to run out of

energy if we don’t do something about it. Now, what can we do

about it?

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Coad, we try to keep the testimony to

about five minutes. I know that is a minimum time but I am going

to ask you to try to summarize at this point.

Mr. COAD. I am just now ready to, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BAIRD. Great. Thank you very much. Go ahead.

Mr. COAD. I have lost my train of thought now. I am sorry. What

we have to do, the only thing we can do is energy efficiency. Mr.

Chalk said—no, Mr. Chairman, you said that buildings consume 40

percent of the energy roughly. They consume it but they don’t use

it. The efficiency is horrible in anything we do with energy. We

have to redesign our complete structure of technology to consume

much, much, much less energy. So efficiency is number one.

So with that, I am going to stop, Mr. Chairman, and I would be

glad to handle any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coad follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. COAD

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,

My name is William J. Coad. I am testifying before this committee as a member

of the National Institute of Building Sciences Board of Directors. I am a volunteer

member of the Board. I am also President of Coad Engineering Enterprises and a

consulting principal and past Chairman/CEO of The McClure Corporation.

I am a registered professional engineer in 38 states and a past President of the

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers

(ASHRAE). For 17 years I was an Affiliate Professor at Washington University in

St. Louis, teaching graduate courses in Mechanical Engineering and served as a thesis advisor in building environmental systems design.

I am here today to testify on expanding the effort you identified in Section 914

of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

The National Institute of Building Sciences is a private, non-profit organization

established by Congress as a single authoritative national source to make findings

and advise both the public and private sectors on the use of building science and

technology to achieve national goals and benefits. It is truly a public/private sector

partnership, governed by a Board of Directors that represents all sectors of the

building community, including appointees by the President of the United States.

I would like to introduce Henry L. Green, Hon. AIA, President of the Institute.

Before coming to the Institute in 2008, Mr. Green was Director of the Bureau of

Construction Codes for the State of Michigan. He is also a past President of the

International Code Council, developer of the International Building Code.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) seek to reduce building-related energy consumption and dependence on foreign energy sources.

Title IX, Subtitle A, Section 914 of EPACT specifically directed the National Institute of Building Sciences to explore the potential for accelerating development of

consensus-based voluntary standards to set requirements for less resource-intensive,

more energy-efficient, high-performance buildings.

As a result of this Congressional directive, the Institute formed the High-Performance Building Council in 2007. In 2008, the Council issued a report entitled, ‘‘Assessment to the U.S. Congress and U.S. Department of Energy on High-Performance

Buildings.’’ My testimony today is based on the conclusions and recommendations

of this report.

23

The Council currently has over 75 associations and federal agencies as members.

They represent all the major sectors of the building community and including

• The American Institute of Architects,

• ASHRAE,

• ASTM International,

• The Associated General Contractors of America and

• The International Code Council, as well as many others.

Section 914 included no specific funding authorization, however, based on a small

amount of funding from the Department of Energy the Council performed an initial

assessment of the current knowledge, with the help of standards development organizations, professional societies, governmental agencies, and major trade associations. Representatives examined hundreds of existing standards to judge their relevance to high-performance buildings.

The Council was charged in Section 914 with determining what was needed to accelerate the development of voluntary, consensus-based standards for high-performance buildings. As our report demonstrates, many of the existing standards, guidelines, and recommended practices are developed independently, addressing only one

aspect of the building, without communicating across disciplines or parties, or looking at the building as a whole.

Implementing the High-Performance Building Council’s recommendations—based

on a harmonized definition of high-performance buildings—would greatly accelerate

the development and use of uniform voluntary consensus-based industry standards

for new construction and renovation.

As Congress considers new legislation focused on implementing high-performance

buildings, the High-Performance Building Council offers its technical expertise and

guidance to help reach the Nation’s goals.

At the time of EPACT the industry was fragmented in terms of performance requirements for high-performance buildings. That is still the case today. However we

now have an organization ready to bring the industry together. The Council’s vision

is harmonized standards—in place and used—that result in high performing buildings. The mission of the Council is to seek industry consensus to establish and update the definition of high-performance buildings and to promote the harmonization

of industry standards to meet that definition and encourage the production of highperformance buildings throughout the United States. The Council would develop an

industry consensus model which would identify the range of metrics and benchmarks to define High-Performance. Federal agency research would assist in providing for these metrics and benchmarks and private voluntary standard development organizations would use the model to develop their individual standards and

to harmonize these together for the final realization of whole high-performance

buildings.

Congress can help by implementing the recommendations made in our report. I

ask your support to implement the activities envisioned and authorized by section

914 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 through the High-Performance Building Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences.

New high-performance building standards have the potential to enable designers,

developers, and owners to construct buildings that significantly exceed the minimum requirements of current codes and standards. The results could lead to highperformance buildings that use substantially less energy, and even potentially improve the health, comfort, and productivity of their occupants.

Thank you.

BIOGRAPHY FOR WILLIAM J. COAD

William J. Coad, President of Coad Engineering Enterprises is a consulting principal and past Chairman/CEO of The McClure Corporation (dba McClure Engineering Associates). Mr. Coad was President of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) in 2001–2002. He received his

degree in Mechanical Engineering from Washington University in 1957. Prior to

forming Coad Engineering Enterprises, Inc., he had been with McClure Engineering

Associates, a Mechanical/Electrical Consulting Firm, for 40 years (following five

years as a design engineer, estimator, and corporate officer of a mechanical contracting company). He is a registered professional engineer in 38 states. He is a

member of the Board of Directors of Mestek Corporation of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Exergen Corporation of Watertown, Massachusetts, and the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) of Washington D.C.

24

As an educator, Mr. Coad served as a Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering for 12

years at Washington University in St. Louis. For 17 years he was an Affiliate Professor at Washington University, teaching graduate courses in Mechanical Engineering and serving as a thesis advisor in building environmental systems design.

Mr. Coad is a member of the Consulting Engineer’s Council, the American Society

of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and a Fellow in the American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). His positions in ASHRAE

have included terms as President (2001–2002), Vice President, Treasurer, and member of the Society’s Board of Directors. He has also served on numerous Technical

Committees and Task Groups, on the Nominating Committee, the Presidential Committee on Energy Resource Evaluation, Panel 12 Standard 90–75, Finance Committee, Energy Council, Technology Council, Members Council, Publishing Council,

Research & Technical Committee, Education Committee, and the Continuing Education Committee. (Often, he has served as Chairman or Vice Chairman of the

above committees and councils). He served in all offices of the St. Louis Chapter of

ASHRAE, (President, 1971–72).

Mr. Coad received the Society’s Distinguished Service Award in 1980, the Crosby

Field Award for the best paper published by ASHRAE in 1985, the Louise & Bill

Holladay Distinguished Fellow Award in 1989, the award for Best Journal Article

(1991), ASHRAE’s highest award for technical achievement, the F. Paul Anderson

Award in 1996, the Exceptional Service Award in 2001, and the Andrew T. Boggs

Service Award in 2002.

Mr. Coad is an Honorary Member of Pi Tau Sigma (Mechanical Engineering Honorary Society), a (1992) recipient of the Washington University Alumni Achievement

Award, and the (2001) recipient of the Donald Julius Groen Prize of the British Institute of Mechanical Engineers (ImechE). He has published several Symposium Papers and has authored numerous articles on Engineering Philosophy and Building

Environmental Systems (including, for 15 years, a monthly column entitled ‘‘Fundamentals to Frontiers’’ in HPAC Engineering Magazine).

William Coad authored ‘‘Energy Engineering and Management for Building Systems,’’ published by Van Nostrand Reinhold, and is a co-author of ‘‘Principles of

Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning’’ published by ASHRAE. He is a member

of the Editorial Advisory Board of HPAC Engineering Magazine. He has served on

the St. Louis Professional Code Committee, and the Missouri State Building Code

Steering Committee. Mr. Coad has been Chairman of the Building Technology Advisory Committee to the Missouri Energy Agency, a member of the Building and

Grounds Committee of the Washington University Board of Trustees, the Board of

Directors of St. Elizabeth Academy in St. Louis, and the Energy Conservation Committee of the American Consulting Engineer’s Council.

25

Chairman BAIRD. We will have plenty for you, Mr. Coad.

Mr. COAD. Sorry I ran over time.

Chairman BAIRD. That is fine. You know, you folks have invested

your entire lives in this and then we are foolish enough to ask you

only five minutes, but we will get more. I just have to commend

your association. To have someone in your role named Coad and

your new President named Green, you guys are in marketing, not

just engineering and then we have got Ehrhardt here to lead the

way as well.

Mr. Cicio, thank you very much and we look forward to your

comments.

26

STATEMENT OF MR. PAUL N. CICIO, PRESIDENT, INDUSTRIAL

ENERGY CONSUMERS OF AMERICA

Mr. CICIO. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Inglis, my name is

Paul Cicio and I am the President of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the

Department of Energy Industrial Technologies Program. The Industrial Energy Consumers of America is a trade association of

leading manufacturing companies with more than $510 billion in

annual revenues. We employ 850,000 employees across the country,

and we are an organization created to promote the interests of

manufacturing companies for which the availability, the use and

cost of energy, and power and feedstock play a significant role in

our ability to complete globally.

The manufacturing sector is a vital sector to the welfare of the

country. We provide the largest contribution to GDP at 12 percent,

over 60 percent of the exports. We employ 14 million people and

nearly of the quarter of the world’s manufacturing output.

Mr. Chairman, the speed at which the world around us is changing is accelerating and we face enormous challenges competing for

domestic and offshore markets and unfortunately it looks like we

are losing ground. From 2000 to 2008, imports are up 29 percent

and manufacturing employment fell 22 percent, a loss of 3.8 million

jobs, and that does not count 2009. Of great concern is that new

manufacturing investment in the United States as a percent of

GDP has been on a decline since the late 1990s. At the same time,

significant new capital investment, often with the latest technology, has made companies in developing countries top in class

competitors. Many of these companies are State owned and are

subsidized. Our competitors are third world countries with firstrate manufacturing technology.

Of new competitive concern is the upcoming requirement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that could add substantial cost that

our competitors in developing countries will not bear. This brings

me to my point. There has never been a time in our history where

new technology and best practices are needed more to increase

manufacturing competitiveness, reduce energy consumption, reduce

greenhouse gas emissions.

The Industrial Technologies Program mission to improve national energy security, climate, environment and economic competitiveness by transforming the way U.S. industry uses energy is

needed more than ever before. As noted, U.S. manufacturing is losing competitiveness. Our manufacturing processes are operating at

their technical limits, which should urgently place a priority on

these private-public partnerships for research and development. In

talking to various companies and trade associations in advance of

this hearing, I feel confident to report to you that this program is

on sound ground. It is well run and it is creating value for the industrial sector. The only criticism that is consistent among everyone is that it is woefully underfunded. The R&D program by sector,

the R&D crosscutting technologies, the best practices, the industrial assessment centers, and the Save Energy Now Program are

all effective and they are desirable. The fiscal year 2008 funding of $64 million and the fiscal year 2009 funding of $62 million is completely insufficient to meet the

27

competitiveness challenges. For perspective, $62 million is an

amount less than one ten-thousandth the amount spent on the

stimulus package. Surely we can afford to invest more than $62

million.

In contrast, developing countries are placing a high value on

manufacturing and they are investing in it. They understand that

it creates good-paying jobs and needed exports. For example, our

stimulus package has negligible spending directed towards manufacturing while China’s stimulus package places manufacturing at

the heart of their investment in their economic recovery.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, given the enormous and growing challenges that we face, we no longer can take the manufacturing sector for granted. It is important for this body to understand the

enormous value that this sector brings and that it is time for investing to take it seriously. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cicio follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL N. CICIO

Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Inglis, my name is Paul Cicio and I am the

president of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you on the Department of Energy, Industrial Technologies

Program.

The Industrial Energy Consumers of America is an association of leading manufacturing companies with $510 billion in annual sales and with more than 850,000

employees nationwide. It is an organization created to promote the interests of manufacturing companies for which the availability, use and cost of energy, power or

feedstock play a significant role in their ability to compete in domestic and world

markets. IECA membership represents a diverse set of industries including: plastics, cement, paper, food processing, brick, chemicals, fertilizer, insulation, steel,

glass, industrial gases, pharmaceutical, aluminum and brewing.

The manufacturing sector is vital to the economic and security welfare of this

country. We provide the largest contribution to GDP at 12 percent, over 60 percent

of the exports; employ over 14 million people and nearly a quarter of the worlds

manufacturing output.

Mr. Chairman, the speed at which the world around us is changing is accelerating

and we face enormous challenges competing for domestic and offshore markets. Unfortunately, it looks like we are losing ground.

From 2000 to 2008 imports are up 29 percent and manufacturing employment fell

22 percent, a loss of 3.8 million high paying jobs. Of great concern is that manufacturing investment in the U.S. as a percent of GDP has been on a decline since the

late 1990s. At the same time, significant new capital investment, often with the latest technology has made companies in developing countries top in class competitors.

Many of these companies are State owned and are subsidized.

A new competitive concern and/or opportunity is the upcoming requirements to reduce GHG emissions. This could add substantial costs that our competitors in developing countries will not have to bear.

This brings me to my point. There has never been a time in our history where

new technology and best practices is needed more to increase manufacturing competitiveness, reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions than like today.

The Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) mission to improve national energy security, climate, environment and economic competitiveness by transforming the way

U.S. industry uses energy is needed more than ever. As noted, U.S. manufacturing

seems to be losing competitiveness. Our manufacturing processes are operating at

their technical limits which should urgently place a priority on private public partnerships in research and development like this program.

In talking to various companies and trade associations in advance of this hearing,

I feel confident to report to you that the program is on sound ground, well run and

creating value for the industrial sector. The only criticism is the lack of federal

funding.

The R&D programs by sector, the R&D crosscutting technologies, best practices,

the Industrial Assessment Centers and the Save Energy Now Program are all effective and desirable.

28

The FY 2008 funding of $64 million and the FY 2009 of $62 million is completely

insufficient to meet the competitiveness challenges. In comparison, from 1998 to

2001 well over $120 million was spent annually.

Mr. Chairman, given the enormous and growing challenges that we face, we can

longer take the manufacturing sector for granted. It is important for this body to

understand the enormous value that this sector brings and that it is time to take

investing in this sector seriously by vastly expanding this program.

Thank you.

BIOGRAPHY FOR PAUL N. CICIO

Paul N. Cicio has been the President of the Industrial Energy Consumers of

America (IECA) since its founding six years ago. IECA is a non-profit trade association created to promote the interests of manufacturing companies for which the

availability, use and cost of energy, power or feedstock play a significant role in

their ability to compete in domestic and world markets. Membership represents a

diverse set of energy intensive industries including: plastics, cement, aluminum,

paper, food processing, brick, chemicals, fertilizer, rubber, steel, glass, industrial

gases, pharmaceutical and brewing.

Mr. Cicio is a well known consumer advocate for the industrial sector on issues

related to energy and the environment and is recognized for his efforts within national and international circles. He has testified seven times before the U.S. House

of Representatives; three times before the U.S. Senate; and twice before the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission on issues regarding natural gas supply; natural gas

market oversight; climate policy and energy efficiency. He has also intervened at the

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

In 2008, the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission appointed

Mr. Cicio to the newly created Energy Markets Advisory Committee (EMAC) representing industrial energy consumers.

In 2006 and again in 2008, the Secretary of the Interior appointed Mr. Cicio to

the U.S. Department of Interior Outer Continental Shelf Policy Advisory Committee.

In 2007, the Secretary of Energy appointed him to the National Coal Council, an

advisory council to the Secretary. In both appointments, Mr. Cicio became the first

energy consumer advocate.

Mr. Cicio moved to Washington DC from Houston, Texas in 1991. Since that time

he has served in several leadership positions within a host of trade associations that

include the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Chemistry Council, the Electricity Consumers Resource Council and the International Federation of

Industrial Energy Consumers. Leadership positions in European trade associations

include the International Chamber of Commerce; the Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the DECD; and the International Federation of Industrial Energy

Consumers–World.

Previous to IECA, Mr. Cicio was employed by The Dow Chemical Company where

he held a number of diverse responsibilities including: hydrocarbons and energy

global issues management and Federal Government affairs, hydrocarbons and energy senior commercial manager, marketing manager, district sales manager, product sales manager. He retired from Dow Chemical with almost 30 years of service.

Mr. Cicio graduated from Youngstown State University with a BS in Business Administration and Economics.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Cicio.

Dr. Ehrhardt-Martinez.

STATEMENT OF DR. KAREN EHRHARDT–MARTINEZ, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY–

EFFICIENT ECONOMY (ACEEE)

Dr. EHRHARDT-MARTINEZ. Thank you. My name is Karen

Ehrhardt-Martinez and I am a research associate with the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and I am also the

Chairman of the 2009 Behavior Energy and Climate Change conference, which will be held here in D.C. in November, and I have

to add that I am a resident of Bowie, Maryland.

My testimony responds to a request to provide information about

the role of social and behavioral sciences in reducing energy conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
29

sumption in buildings and how these sciences could be included in

the DOE’s research programs. As discussed in detail in my written

testimony, insights from the social and behavioral sciences really

do offer an important opportunity to enable a significantly greater

level of energy savings in buildings as well as other energy sectors.

They can help maximize potential technology-based savings. They

can improve decision-making and reveal social, behavioral and cultural means of motivating and facilitating smart energy behaviors.

Let me start by saying that behavior-oriented programs and research can help us understand, explain and address two of the

most persistent gaps that continue to limit energy savings and energy efficiency. The first gap is the energy efficiency gap, or the gap

between the potential cost-effective energy efficiency investments

on one hand and the investments that are actually made on the

other. The second gap is what I call the attitude behavior gap, and

this gap divides favorable attitudes on the one hand from what

might be best characterized as less than favorable behaviors on the

other.

The energy efficiency gap is large. According to several ACEEE

studies, this first gap represents lost energy savings of roughly 30

percent or more. Similarly, studies of prevailing attitudes and behaviors suggest that while people are often aware of the economic

and environmental benefits of investing in energy-efficient technologies and behaviors, a variety of social, cultural and economic

factors actually frequently intervene so as to severely limit the

amount of follow-through that actually occurs, whether by individuals, households or businesses. A great example ‘‘gap’’ is provided

by some recent Gallup Poll research that reveals that while roughly 85 percent of Americans have actually reported that they should

be spending thousands of dollars to increase the energy efficiency

of their homes, in reality, only a very small percentage actually are

acting on these concerns in any way significant way.

So what is going on? That is what social and behavior research

can really help us to understand. We need to improve our understanding and application of social and behavioral and even cultural

factors that can help us deliver more of the potential energy savings that are available through new and existing technologies. We

also need to use this information to reduce social and cultural barriers and to motivate people to take the actions that they readily

recognize as important to achieving energy savings. My written testimony provides many examples of how social science insights have

been able to narrow these gaps.

Next I would like to talk about what I call designing a new looking glass, a new way to imagine human behavior and why it matters. While our culture generally likes to think of people as rational

actors, social scientists tend to work with a more complete understanding of human behavior. Unfortunately, traditional approaches

of achieving energy savings and energy efficiency use what I call

a distorted looking glass. They use what is most commonly referred

to as a techno-economic framework, and this approach is primarily

focused on a rational actor model that seeks to increase energy efficiency and increase energy savings exclusively through technological and economic means. Unfortunately from this purview, reducing energy consumption is as simple as designing a more enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
30

ergy-efficient product and then ensuring the product is economical

and its replacement is cost-effective. The logic in that regard is

sound but only as far as it goes. Programs built around this logic

assume that people typically act in economically rational ways. Unfortunately, real-world experience suggests otherwise. In fact, research suggests that in the residential sector, people seldom act accordingly to the rational economic actor model, and our understanding of the decision-making processes in business and industry

also tend to fall short. As such, the performance of energy and efficiency programs requires that we gain and apply an improved understanding of what actually motivates energy-smart behaviors.

Two mechanisms I suggest could help develop a better looking

glass and more effective programs. One is a substantial increase in

the involvement of social and behavioral scientists in the variety of

processes, and the second is the development and application of a

behavioral toolkit that effectively identifies key concerns and behavioral insights that have proven effective in addressing behavioral change.

Finally, I would like to conclude by mentioning the need for a

broad integration of social and behavioral science throughout

DOE’s work. It is important to recognize the significance of behavior-related approaches as an essential piece of a multi-part strategy

for addressing energy issues and climate change efforts. As noted

in a recent New York Times article, the principal drivers of our current energy and climate challenges are human choices, behaviors

and lifestyles. As such, the success of our efforts depends on our

ability to give these issues more prominence through behaviorsmart policies, through an improved understanding of the ways in

which people both shape and are shaped by their physical environment, by a recognition of the opportunities and constraints associated with existing social structures, cultural norms and values and

other sociocultural considerations, and finally, a recognition of

interpersonal and psychological factors associated with motivating

and constraining behavioral change. By moving in this direction,

we can make important strides in closing both the energy efficiency

gap and the gap between consumer attitudes and behaviors. In

short, mobilizing our population to adopt energy-smart behaviors

and technologies will require the insights provided by social and

behavioral scientists and these insights need to become a larger

part of the efforts of the U.S. Department of Energy. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Ehrhardt-Martinez follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAREN EHRHARDT-MARTINEZ

Summary

This testimony responds to an invitation from the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the Committee on Science and Technology to inform Committee Members about the role of the Department of Energy’s research programs

in:

• developing technologies and standards to enable deployment of net-zero energy buildings,

• support sustainability in domestic industries, and

• highlight R&D areas which need continued attention to achieve the goals of

the DOE net-zero energy buildings program and beyond.

This testimony specifically addresses the need for increased research support to

investigate and apply insights from the social and behavioral sciences. As discussed

31

in this testimony, insights from the social and behavioral sciences offer an important opportunity to enable a significantly greater level of energy savings in buildings, industry, the residential sector, and transportation. More specifically, social

science insights can help maximize potential technology-based savings; improve decision-making; and reveal social, behavioral, and cultural means of motivating and

facilitating smart energy behaviors.

Without the development and application of insights from the social and behavioral sciences, energy efficiency programs and policies will be constrained by the

persistence of two important gaps:

• the gap between the potential energy savings of existing technologies and the

actual energy savings achieved, and

• the gap between the good intentions of individuals, businesses, and institutions and the less-than-adequate translation of those intentions into smart

energy behaviors.

According to several ACEEE studies of the unrealized energy efficiency potential

associated with existing technologies, the first gap represents lost energy savings of

30 percent or more with current technologies. Similarly, studies of prevailing attitudes and behaviors suggest that while people are often aware of the economic and

environmental benefits of investing in energy-efficient technologies and behaviors,

a variety of social, cultural, and economic factors frequently intervene so as to severely limit the number of individuals, households, and businesses that actually follow through on their intended actions. A better understanding and application of social and behavioral factors could deliver more of the potential energy savings available through new and existing technologies. They could also help reduce existing social and cultural barriers and motivate people to take the actions that they readily

recognize as important to achieving energy savings and stabilizing (and then reducing) carbon emissions.

Unfortunately, traditional approaches to energy efficiency typically apply what is

most commonly referred to as a techno-economic framework. This approach is primarily focused on achieving energy efficiency through technological and economic

means. From this purview, reducing energy consumption is as simple as designing

a more energy-efficient product (furnace, television, refrigerator, computer, motor,

etc.) and then ensuring that the products are economical and their replacement is

cost-effective. The logic is sound—as far as it goes. Programs built around this logic

assume that people who are given the choice to invest in a product that is more

energy efficient, with little risk and a short payback period, should adopt the superior technology. Unfortunately, however, real world experience tells a different story.

In fact, research suggests that people seldom act according to the rational economic

actor model. As such, we need a better means of understanding what actually motivates energy-smart behaviors, otherwise many government programs are likely to

continue to under-perform. Fortunately, the development and application of a behavioral toolkit could go a long way toward substantially improving upon the more traditional approaches to energy efficiency and result in greater energy productivity

and energy savings.

Of equal importance, however, is the need to recognize the potential scope of energy savings associated with social and behavioral initiatives. Such initiatives offer

the potential of large energy savings. In fact, two recent studies (Gardner and Stern,

2008; Laitner et al., 2009) suggest that the potential behavior-related energy savings in the residential sector alone represent roughly 25 percent of current residential sector energy consumption. By applying insights from the social and behavioral

sciences to improve our understanding of decision-making, organizational behavior,

and the influence of social and cultural norms in business and industrial processes,

greater energy savings could also be achieved in the commercial and industrial sectors.

Finally, it is important to recognize the significance of behavior-related approaches as an essential piece of energy and climate change efforts. In fact, the principal drivers of our current energy and climate challenges are human choices, behaviors, and lifestyles. As such, they must also be an essential part of any attempt

to address these challenges, if we hope to be successful in our efforts. In other

words, human and organizational behavior is a critical component of both cause and

solution. The DOE’s efforts would undoubtedly benefit greatly from a more systematic and widespread incorporation of social and behavioral insights. However, funding for these types of initiatives is woefully inadequate and needs to be greatly expanded in order to realize the full magnitude of potential behavior-related energy

savings. Such an effort would go a long way toward closing the gaps that currently

exist between: potential and actual energy savings on the one hand and between

attitudes and behaviors on the other. In short, mobilizing our population to adopt

32

1Zero energy buildings produce as much energy as they use over the course of a year.

energy-smart behaviors and technologies will require the insights provided by social

and behavioral scientists. These insights need to become a larger part of the efforts

at the U.S. Department of Energy.

Such an approach should provide widespread and accelerated research, experimentation, and application of behavior-related initiatives as well as policy initiatives

that recognize the well-documented limitations of the techno-economic model and

the need to integrate behavioral considerations broadly into existing programs and

policies.

Introduction

My name is Karen Ehrhardt-Martinez. I am a Research Associate in the Economic

and Social Analysis Program at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), a nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing energy efficiency as

a means of promoting economic prosperity, energy security, and environmental protection. I am here today at the invitation of the House Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment to discuss the role of the Department of Energy’s research programs in developing technologies and standards to enable deployment of net-zero energy buildings and, in particular, to highlight R&D areas which

need continued attention to achieve the goals of the DOE net-zero energy buildings

program and beyond.

I would like thank you for the opportunity to testify here today and I applaud

the Committee for its interest in identifying R&D areas that need continued attention to achieve the goals of the DOE’s programs.

There is no question that the DOE Building Technologies Program has achieved

significant energy savings through its unique combination of efforts, including (but

not limited to) their work on developing standards for appliances and commercial

equipment, and establishing building energy codes, and more recent efforts at

achieving marketable net-zero energy commercial buildings by 2025. Nevertheless,

today’s buildings continue to consume more energy than any other sector of the U.S.

economy—more than transportation and more than industry. And the potential

building-related energy savings continue to be large. Whether we are talking about

improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings or new construction, the efforts

of the DOE Building Technologies Program offer the opportunity of substantial energy savings.

An important part of what makes the Building Technologies Program work so

well is their active partnership with the private sector, State and local governments,

national laboratories, and universities, and their work to not only improve the efficiency of buildings but also the equipment, components, and systems within them.

These efforts include developing more energy-efficient technologies associated with

building envelopes, equipment, lighting, and windows, as well as the use of advanced sensors and controls and other high-tech means of managing energy use

(DOE, 2008).

The primary driver of the Program’s activities is the DOE’s zero energy building

research initiative.1 Importantly, the goal of achieving zero energy buildings necessarily requires extreme energy efficiency in all aspects of building design and construction, equipment choice, and building and equipment operation. Unless all of

these areas are adequately addressed, the concept of zero energy buildings is unlikely to be achieved in practice.

While the strengths of the existing program are many, there are unfortunately

also some weaknesses. And as is common to most programs at DOE, there is an

substantially insufficient amount of attention paid to the human dimensions of energy consumption and energy efficiency. This shortcoming is associated with a long

history of technology-centric programs that have failed to achieve their technological

potential in terms of energy savings. A more effective approach must recognize the

importance of the human element and work with social and behavioral scientists to

effectively address it through behavior-oriented programs.

The Two Gaps: Efficiency Potential, Attitudes, and Behaviors

Among the potential benefits of behavior-oriented programs and research is the

promise it holds for explaining, understanding, and addressing the two most important gaps that persist in maximizing energy efficiency and reducing energy consumption. More specifically, behavior-based programs can help identify solutions for

closing: (1) the energy efficiency gap (the gap between the potential, cost-effective,

energy efficiency investments and those investments actually made); and (2) the atVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
33

2 Note: One especially interesting observation is that although most people easily recognize

that social and behavioral approaches to energy savings are more complex than traditional technology-based approaches, behavior-based approaches have consistently received substantially

less funding.

titude-behavior gap (the gap between favorable attitudes toward energy efficiency

and less favorable behaviors).

According to several ACEEE studies of the unrealized energy efficiency potential

associated with existing technologies, the first gap represents lost energy savings of

30 percent or more with current technologies. Similarly, studies of prevailing attitudes and behaviors suggest that while people are often aware of the economic and

environmental benefits of investing in energy-efficient technologies and behaviors,

a variety of social, cultural, and economic factors frequently intervene so as to severely limit the number of individuals, households, and businesses that actually follow through on their intended actions, resulting in additional efficiency losses. For

roughly 30 years, numerous researchers have attempted to identify the causes behind the energy efficiency gap (although primarily from an economic perspective) attributing the gap to various market barriers, transaction costs, and (in part) to consumer attitudes and preferences (Sanstad et al., 2006; Stern and Aronson, 1984).

Among social scientists there has been a parallel effort to explain the gap between

favorable environmental attitudes and less favorable behaviors (Dunlap, 2008). An

example of this second gap can be illustrated using recent Gallup poll research that

indicates that while more than three-quarters (77 percent) of Americans personally

worry (either a fair amount or a great deal) about the availability and affordability

of energy and 85 percent report that they ‘‘should be spending thousands of dollars

to increase the energy efficiency of their homes,’’ less than two percent of the population is actually acting on these concerns in any significant way. Despite the high

level of concern about energy and global climate change, people aren’t taking advantage of the potential for cost-effective energy savings.

Rational Economic Actors and the Need for a Behavioral Toolkit

Most efforts to date have approached the challenge of maximizing potential energy savings exclusively through a techno-economic framework of change (Parnell

and Popovic Larsen, 2005). Since 1970, both theoretical and practical models of energy-related behavior have focused on reducing energy use as a function of developing the right technologies, making them available at the right price and then promoting them to consumers by espousing their ‘‘rational’’ economic benefits.2 Underlying the techno-economic model are the assumptions that growth in energy consumption is best solved through the application of new technologies and that energy

consumption and technology adoption behaviors are best understood in terms of a

set of economic calculations involving the price of energy, the cost of technologies,

and the level of disposable income. In this context, people are portrayed as rational

economic decision-makers who will behave in predictable ways when confronted

with changes in energy prices within a given market setting. Moreover, the model

also suggests that the prevalence of energy-efficient behaviors and choices may be

enhanced most effectively through the introduction of carefully crafted economic incentives and disincentives (Archer et al., 1987). Finally, the model suggests that

consumers, when presented with information about the economically-desirable package, will act to increase their net benefit.

According to the techno-economic model, the primary barriers to the transfer of

energy-efficient technologies are 1) the lack of more efficient technologies, 2) the

lack of sufficient economic incentives, and/or 3) the lack of timely, sufficient, or even

accurate and complete information. While these factors are undoubtedly important,

and while a cursory evaluation suggests that programs using this approach have

achieved some success, their success has been significantly limited as a result of the

narrow focus on the techno-economic model and the flawed assumptions on which

it is based (Parnell and Popovic Larsen, 2005).

Not surprisingly, the assumption that individuals are economically-rational actors

has been regularly called into question. For example, in a study of solar technology

adoption, Archer et al. (1987, p. 78) found that, ‘‘information indispensable to even

gross cost calculations was, in fact, absent’’ in people’s assessments. Similarly, in

a study of vehicle purchase decisions, Turentine and Kurani (2006) found that ‘‘even

the most financially skilled’’ consumers did not use payback calculations as part of

their vehicle purchase decision-making. Archer et al. (1987) concluded that ‘‘this result appears to contradict a central tenet of the rational model’’—namely, the economic rationality of the decision-making process. Similarly, in a study of consumer

intentions to conserve energy, Feldman (1987, p. 39) finds that, ‘‘avoided costs and

implicit discount rates are probably not useful concepts for describing the behavior

34

3More information is available on the BECC Conference web site at www.BECCconference.org

of the general public . . .’’ and concludes that it is dangerous to assume that energy

consumers operate as rational investors. Moreover, Stern and Aronson (1984, p. 61)

argue that ‘‘there is a problem with the very notion of users as investors’’ because

people generally don’t conceptualize energy and energy-using equipment only as investments. For example, when people purchase a car, they are concerned with a variety of characteristics including performance, reliability, safety, styling, status, resale value and fuel-efficiency, but the primary emphasis may be on any one of these

factors. As an example, evaluations of utility-sponsored incentive programs promoting home retrofits have shown that even when utilities offered rebates that covered as much as 93 percent of the retrofit costs, only five percent of people actually

decided in favor of having the retrofits done.

The persistent and overly narrow focus on economic considerations often results

in the oversimplification of the decision-making process and the exclusion of social,

psychological and other variables that have proven essential in understanding individual and organizational behavior. In fact, social and behavioral research consistently shows that people and organizations are both overtly and subconsciously influenced by a variety of non-economic variables including their values, beliefs, and attitudes, as well as prevailing social norms, group norms and interpersonal dynamics.

As such, the need for increased behavioral research is real and the potential energy

savings are significant.

In order to unlock these potential savings, research on energy-efficient technologies and practices would clearly benefit greatly from the adoption of a behavioral toolkit. Such a toolkit would include the use of insights from a variety of social

and behavioral fields including sociology, psychology, anthropology, demography,

public policy, behavioral economics, marketing, and communications. Notably, these

types of insights are increasingly being shared among those people working in these

fields of study. In fact their efforts to develop more extensive networks of collaboration have recently been catalyzed through the development of an annual conference

on Behavior, Energy and Climate Change (BECC). This year will mark the third

annual BECC Conference that will bring together more than 700 policy-makers, social scientists, and researchers, as well as representatives of government agencies,

utilities, cities, businesses and non-profits to focus on understanding human behavior and decision-making in order to improve energy efficiency research, policy design

and program effectiveness and to accelerate our transition to a low-carbon economy.

Importantly, this year’s conference will be held in Washington, D.C., allowing for

the broad participation and involvement of national policy-makers, Hill staff, DOE

and EPA staff, and representatives of the many national labs. This is a unique opportunity to catalyze DOE’s work in this area. This year’s BECC Conference will

be held at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel on November 15–18, 2009.3 An overview of prior conference insights in provided by Ehrhardt-Martinez (2008).

The Behavior Continuum and the Size of Potential Behavior-Related Savings

An amazing variety of behavioral influences have contributed to the historical

gains in energy efficiency that have already been achieved, but to what degree can

a more concerted effort to integrate behavioral insights achieve even greater returns

in terms of additional energy savings? This section (1) provides an example of the

dramatic behavior-related energy savings achieved in Juneau, Alaska; (2) describes

the range of relevant, energy-smart behaviors that comprise what we call the Behavior Energy Response Continuum; and (3) discusses the range of potential savings

associated with energy-smart behaviors—behaviors that both drive new innovations

and that change the patterns of technology adoption and energy service demands.

Powering Down in Juneau, Alaska

What can we learn from actions taking during energy emergencies? The experiences of the city and residents of Juneau, Alaska can teach us how large and how

quickly energy savings can be achieved through behavioral change when people get

serious about the task at hand. In April 2008, an avalanche damaged a major electrical power line near Juneau, cutting power to the city’s 30,000 residents. Following

the avalanche, the city was forced to rely on a bank of diesel-powered generators

to supply its power. Within two weeks, Juneau had cut its energy consumption by

about 20 percent, and by the end of May electricity use was down 40 percent (Berkeley Lab News Center, 2008).

The massive and coordinated effort to cut electricity consumption included quick

energy audits of the city’s low-income housing and local businesses, a public camVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
35

paign to engage people in the cause, an effort to identify and unplug items that

needlessly draw power even when turned off, a campaign to replace incandescent

bulbs with compact fluorescents, and identification of unnecessary municipal electricity use. In addition, the local utility provided regular feedback to the public,

charting the city’s progress in reducing energy use (Berkeley Lab News Center,

2008).

These efforts were geared toward making energy conservation more than just socially acceptable—instead they attempted ‘‘to suggest that conservation was expected.’’ The essential message was that in order to be a good citizen, you needed

to conserve energy (Berkeley Lab News Center, 2008).

The lesson? A city of 30,000 people was able to cut electricity consumption by 40

percent in approximately six weeks. So, what might be possible society-wide given

the right motivation, the right programs, and the right incentives? Even five months

after the power lines were restored, the city’s electricity consumption remained eight

percent below consumption levels for the prior year (NPR, 2008). A variety of similar examples of dramatic, behavior-based energy savings have been documented by

Alan Meier in his book, Saving Energy in a Hurry (Meier, 2005). While these examples are useful for illustrating the scope of potential behavior-related savings, the

exceptional circumstances are likely to influence consumers’ general willingness to

participate in energy saving behaviors. Nevertheless, the examples do suggest that

more concerted programs could significantly increase energy savings.

The Behavior Continuum

The real debate isn’t about whether behavior has contributed to the dramatic reductions in energy consumption growth rates in the U.S. Instead it is about the

need to recognize behavior as an important but often overlooked resource for achieving large-scale reductions in energy consumption and carbon emissions. Unfortunately, some energy professionals continue to suggest that while behavior-oriented

programs may provide a useful way to help deploy smart technologies, they are best

thought of as boutique or niche strategies which are most suitably employed to enhance an otherwise technology-focused deployment of more energy-productive investments. Nevertheless, research on this topic suggests that sizable energy savings

and efficiency gains are likely to be achieved by addressing the human dimensions

of energy consumption, energy efficiency and energy conservation.

In fact, past analyses by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy

(ACEEE), and by well-known researchers like Gerald Gardner, Paul Stern, and others suggest that understanding and shaping behaviors can provide a significant savings. (See Gardner and Stern et al., 2008; and Laitner et al., 2009.) Indeed, recent,

albeit preliminary, assessments by ACEEE researchers indicate that ‘‘the behavioral

resource’’ might provide as much as a 25 percent efficiency gain (possibly more)

above normal productivity improvements. Similarly, utilities and energy research

organizations are increasingly working to integrate behavior-change programs and

practices into their larger portfolio of activities with the goal of reducing costly energy production and consumption and carbon emissions.

As such, the Behavior Continuum was designed to illustrate the range and potential impact of changed habits, lifestyles and technology-based behaviors in terms of

the potential energy savings within the United States. Although the recent implementation of the Behavior Continuum has been focused on identifying and assessing

energy-smart behaviors in the residential sector (including personal transportation

uses within the control of households), future assessment will also include behaviorrelated energy saving in the commercial and industrial sectors as well.

The Behavior Energy Response Continuum is a means of estimating the energy

savings that could be achieved if new energy-wise habits (i.e., building and equipment operation practices and maintenance) became the norm, and if new energywise lifestyles and choices were encouraged by smart policies oriented toward reducing energy consumption. The Behavior Continuum ranges from habits and lifestyles

on one end, to technology choices on the other. The middle of the Continuum includes a variety of infrequent, low-cost and no-cost behaviors that can reduce energy

consumption including weather-stripping and caulking and insulating ducts or ensuring adequate space between the refrigerator and the wall (Ehrhardt-Martinez et

al., 2009). See Figure 1 below.

36

In terms of the residential sector alone, preliminary research at the national level

suggests that changed behaviors offer potential reductions of 20–25 percent of current levels of residential energy consumption over perhaps a five- to eight-year period within the United States.

Moreover, in a recent application of the Behavior Energy Response Continuum for

the State of Wisconsin, the potential impact of behavior-oriented programs (focused

on addressing individual habits, lifestyles, and technology choices) indicated a potential doubling of the projected residential sector energy savings opportunities

(Ehrhardt-Martinez et al., 2009). More specifically, the Wisconsin estimates (based

on Wisconsin-specific energy data) indicated that behavior-oriented programs held

the potential of reducing residential energy consumption in Wisconsin by as much

as 18 percent by 2012, or 38 trillion Btus. As such, a more comprehensive behavior

program could result in savings that are more than twice as large as those associated with standard, technology-oriented approaches by generating a broader range

of energy-smart behaviors, by eliciting a greater level of responsiveness among ‘‘traditional program’’ participants, and by driving a greater level of spill-over among

non-participants throughout Wisconsin.

The use of the behavior continuum is one means of identifying the numerous

types of behavior-related energy savings opportunities and developing a more comprehensive estimate of potential behavior-related energy saving. Importantly, the

Behavior Continuum and the results from the associated analysis challenge traditional approaches to energy efficiency programs that tend to marginalize behaviororiented programs by characterizing them as boutique or niche strategies that can

only round out a technology-based deployment of more energy-productive investments. The application of the Behavior Continuum suggests the contrary; that behavior-related programs offer potential energy savings on a surprisingly large

scale—one that rivals a pure technology based perspective in terms of expected efficiency gains.

Levels of Intervention and Recommendations

Even with all this good news about the potential for using social and behavioral

insights for generating larger reductions in energy use, it is important to recognize

that these savings will not occur without consciously and deliberately incorporating

social and behavioral change as an explicit initiative within D.O.E. programs.

Such an initiative would ideally apply relevant behavioral insights through a variety of intervention levels including:

• behavior-smart policies,

• an improved understanding of the ways in which people both shape and are

shaped by their physical environment,

• a recognition of the opportunities and constraints associated with existing social structures, cultural norms and values, and other socio-cultural considerations,

• a recognition of interpersonal and psychological factors associated with motivating and constraining behavioral change.

At the policy level, for example, behavioral interventions could help design more

effective policies by taking advantage of the current cognitive dispositions that have

been shown to be prevalent across the population. Many of these approaches are explored in the field of behavioral economics. For example, when faced with making

a decision about which building features or equipment to include in various builders

packages, the structure of those decisions is likely to play an important role in the

ultimate decision made by the consumer. By structuring the decision such that conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
37

4http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=cal.showPledge

sumers need to opt-out as oppose to opt-in to the choice of energy efficient designs

and equipment, a much larger proportion of new home buyers are likely to incorporate energy efficient features in their new homes. The work of Carrie Armel (at

the Precourt Energy Efficiency Center at Stanford University), Cass Sunstein

(Thaler and Sunstein, 2008) and other researchers suggest that people tend to have

a lot of inertia when it comes to decision-making. Armel uses the example of automobile drivers faced with the decision of donating their organs. Participation in such

programs tends to be about 20 percent in countries where the default option is NOT

donating (therefore participants are required to opt-in) compared to a participation

rate of 80 to 90 percent in countries where the default option is to participate

(therefore participants are required to opt-out). See Thaler and Sunstein (2008) for

additional examples.

In terms of the built environment and buildings in particular, social and behavioral insights can play an important role in determining and emphasizing the many

non-energy benefits of energy-efficient designs and equipment. For example, natural

daylighting and greenery have been shown to increase productivity, while equipment designed from the users perspective (with the help of social and anthropological insights) have been shown to reduce operator error, increase the proper

usage, and maximize energy savings. According to Armel (2008), there is an enormous body of literature in cognitive science speaking to issues of how we can improve users’ performance, yet often this knowledge fails to be incorporated into design.

Socio-cultural and interpersonal interventions recognize the importance of social

institutions and culture, norms, and networks in the shaping of individual and organizational behaviors. And there are an increasing number of examples of energy

programs that are successfully incorporating some of these socio-cultural insights

into their efforts to increase the adoption and diffusion of energy-efficient technologies. Some examples include Project Porchlight which uses several different social insights to encourage the adoption of compact fluorescent light bulbs in Canada,

and the ENERGY STAR program’s Change a Light Campaign. Interestingly, both

of these programs use social networks, commitment, norms, and feedback to promote the adoption of energy-efficient light bulbs. And both have been structured

using the principles of community-based social marketing which readily overlap

with elements of an approach rooted in a concern for social, rather than economic,

rationality. (See Ehrhardt-Martinez et al., 2009).

The ENERGY STAR Change a Light Campaign, led by the U.S. EPA, requires

participants to pledge to change at least one light bulb in their house with one that

has earned the ENERGY STAR. Individuals and organizations can participate by

logging on to the ENERGY STAR web site4 and specifying how many light bulbs

they plan to change. Individuals can also become ‘‘pledge drivers’’ by committing to

get their community or organization involved in the campaign and committing to

promoting the change of at least 100 light bulbs. Participants provide their name,

zip code and organizational affiliation, allowing pledge drivers and EPA staff to

track their progress and access established social networks to promote change and

establish new social norms. The progress of each organization is tracked online-observable for all to see. The public tracking prompts passive competition among

pledge drivers and presents an opportunity to recognize top performers. Moreover,

the web site offers special resources for teachers, retailers and government leaders

to work with students, consumers, and communities.

Project Porchlight is a similar initiative run by a Canadian non-profit organization called One Change based in Ottawa, Ontario. The campaign works with Hydro

Ottawa, the City of Ottawa, volunteers and other partners to effect social and environmental change. The original goal of the campaign was to get 200,000 households

in Ottawa to change at least one inefficient incandescent light bulb to one energyefficient CFL by providing residents with a free light bulb. By using existing networks, the project encourages local action in neighborhoods and within groups by

working with group members who deliver light bulbs door to door. Light bulb recipients make a commitment to their neighbors that they will install the light bulb

(preferably in a prominent place) as a symbol of their commitment to the effort; an

action which also provides a first step in shaping their identity as someone who is

willing to take action to reduce their environmental impact (One Change, 2008).

Early in 2008, the project successfully surpassed their revised goal of delivering

more than one million energy-efficient bulbs.

According to McKenzie-Mohr and Smith (2007), direct appeals that ask people to

commit to take a specific action achieve higher levels of behavior change. If a person

agrees to take a specific action, they are likely to follow through on it, especially

38

5Zero energy buildings produce as much energy as they use over the course of a year.

if the commitment has been made publicly. They state that because human beings

have a need to appear consistent, we are likely to agree to future similar requests

for our commitment as well. This holds true even if the next request is larger, occurs after much time has passed, and comes from a different group than that of the

initial request. Agreeing to the first request is actually thought to alter how one

sees oneself, and in an enduring way.

Social and behavioral insights can also be used to change behaviors associated

with habits and lifestyles. For example, several studies have explored the role of social norms in determining environmentally responsible behaviors. In 1990, Cialdini

et al. investigated the effect of norms on individuals’ decisions to despoil the environment. In the study, ‘‘participants were given the opportunity to litter in either

a previously clean or fully littered environment after first witnessing a confederate

who either dropped trash into the environment or simply walked through it.’’

Cialdini et al. hypothesized that: 1) participants would be more likely to litter in

the already littered environment than into a clean one; 2) participants who witnessed the confederate drop trash into a fully littered environment would be the

most likely to litter there themselves because their attention would be drawn to the

pro-littering descriptive norm; and 3) participants who saw the confederate drop

trash into a clean environment would be least likely to litter there, because their

attention would be drawn to evidence of an anti-littering descriptive norm. In fact,

the study found that 32 percent of the participants littered in the littered environment without the confederate while 54 percent of participants littered in the same

environment when the confederate did litter. The third hypothesis was also supported by the finding that only 14 percent of participants littered in the clean environment when the confederate did not litter, while a mere six percent of participants littered in the same environment when the confederate littered.

In a more recent study of energy conservation, Schultz et al. (2007) investigated

‘‘respondents’ views of their reasons for conserving energy at home as well as reports of their actual residential energy saving activities such as installing energyefficient appliances and light bulbs, adjusting thermostats, and turning off lights.’’

A study of the relationship between participants’ stated reasons for saving energy

and their energy saving actions indicated that conservation behaviors were most

strongly correlated with the perception that other people were participating. According to Schultz, ‘‘this belief that others were conserving correlated twice as highly

with reported energy saving efforts than did any of the reasons that had been rated

as more important personal motivators.’’ This work has recently been taken one step

further through a number of innovative program designs being implemented

through some electric utilities. In a recent review of Positive Energy’s work in this

area, the application of social norms and other behavioral insights was found to be

effective in generating a two to three percent reduction in energy consumption during a nine-month implementation period.

Social and behavioral insights can both enable technology-based energy savings

and provide additional savings through the development of energy-wise habits, decisions and lifestyles. Importantly, these types of approaches offer low-cost options for

achieving dramatic energy savings. Unfortunately they are largely missing from existing DOE initiatives.

As stated in the introduction to this testimony, the primary driver of the Building

Technologies Program activities is the D.O.E. zero energy building research initiative.5 In order to meet the initiative’s goal of achieving zero energy buildings, every

effort will need to be made to achieve the extreme energy efficiency goals in building

design and construction, equipment choice, and building and equipment operation.

Social and behavioral research and insights will be a critical component in meeting

these goals. As such, it is imperative that:

• D.O.E.’s work more adequately address the human elements that are integral

to achieving their energy-efficiency goals,

• support and learn from the work of social and behavioral scientists,

• develop a social and behavioral initiative as part of their own work, and

• provide financial support in order to expand on existing research in this field

of study.

The long history of technology-centric programs has failed to substantially narrow

the gap between the energy saving potential of existing cost-effective technologies

and actual levels of energy savings. Social and behavioral insights can help close

that gap if we’re willing to invest in them.

39

Conclusions

The full array of evidence provided in this testimony suggests that more research

and development is needed to explore, develop and apply social and behavioral insights and interventions. Similarly, evidence provided herein also suggests that such

insights and initiatives offer the possibility of a significantly improved effectiveness

of D.O.E.’s building technologies initiatives as well as increased energy savings.

Behavior-related approaches represent an essential component of energy and climate change efforts. In fact, the principal drivers of our current energy and climate

challenges are human choices, behaviors, and lifestyles. As such, they must also be

an essential part of any attempt to address these challenges, if we hope to be successful in our efforts. In other words, human and organizational behavior are a critical component of both the causes of, and solutions to, our energy and climate problems.

While the DOE’s initiatives will undoubtedly benefit greatly from a more systematic and widespread incorporation of social and behavioral insights, this will not

happen without increased funding for associated research and development.

Such an effort would go a long way toward closing the gaps that currently exist

between: potential and actual energy savings on the one hand and between favorable attitudes and less-favorable behaviors on the other. In short, mobilizing our

population to adopt energy smart behaviors and technologies will require the insights provided by social and behavioral scientists. These insights need to become

a larger part of the efforts at the U.S. Department of Energy.

References

Archer, D., T. Pettigrew, M. Costanza, B. Iritani, I. Walker, and L. White. 1987.

‘‘Energy Conservation and Public Policy: The Mediation of Individual Behavior.’’

In Energy Efficiency: Perspectives in Individual Behavior. Washington, D.C.:

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Armel, Carrie. 2008. ‘‘Behavior and Energy.’’ A presentation prepared for the 2008

Behavior, Energy and Climate Change Conference. Stanford, CA: Precourt Energy Efficiency Center, Stanford University.

Berkeley Lab News Center. 2008. ‘‘Powering Down in Juneau.’’ Berkeley Lab News

Center (June 17, 2008). Available online at: www.lbl.gov/public info/

newscenter/features/2008/EETD-alaska.html

Cialdini, R.B., R.R. Reno, and C.A. Kallgren. 1990. ‘‘A Focus Theory of Normative

Conduct: Recycling the Concept of Norms to Reduce Littering in Public Places.’’

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58:1015–1026.

[DOE] Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program. 2008. ‘‘About the Program.’’ Information available online at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

index.html

Dunlap, Riley. 2008. ‘‘Climate-Change Views: Republican-Democratic Gaps Expand.’’

Princeton, NJ: Gallup.

Ehrhardt-Martinez, Karen; Laitner, John A. ‘‘Skip’’ and Vanessa McKinney. 2009.

‘‘Wisconsin Behavior Energy Response Continuum: Extending Program Capacity

to Deliver Energy Efficiency Benefits.’’ A report prepared for the Energy Center

of Wisconsin. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Ehrhardt-Martinez, Karen and John A. ‘‘Skip’’ Laitner. 2009. ‘‘Breaking out of the

Economic Box: Energy Efficiency, Social Rationality and Non-economic Drivers

of Behavioral Change.’’ Paper prepared for the 2009 ECEEE Summer Study.

Stockholm, Sweden: European Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Ehrhardt-Martinez, Karen. 2008. ‘‘Behavior, Enery and Climate Change: Policy Directions, Program Innovations, and Research Paths.’’ Washington, DC: ACEEE.

Feldman, S. 1987. ‘‘Why is it So Hard to Sell ’Savings’ as a Reason for Energy Conservation?’’ In Energy Efficiency: Perspectives in Individual Behavior. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.

Gardner, Gerald T. and Paul C. Stern. 2008. ‘‘The Short List: The Most Effective

Actions U.S. Households can take to Curb Climate Change.’’ Environment 50(5),

12–24.

Laitner, John A. ‘‘Skip,’’ Ehrhardt-Martinez, Karen, and Vanessa McKinney. 2009.

‘‘Examining the Scale of the Behavior Energy Efficiency Continuum.’’ ECEEE

Summer Study paper. Stockholm, Sweden: European Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

40

McKenzie-Mohr, Doug and William Smith. 2007. Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An

Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing. Gabriola Island, British

Columbia: New Society Publishers.

Meier, Allen. 2005. Saving Energy in a Hurry: Dealing with Temporary Shortfalls

on Electricity Suppliers. International Energy Agency: OECD Publishing.

[NPR] National Public Radio. 2008. ‘‘With Juneau’s Power Restored, Conservation

Drops.’’ Morning Edition. (August 15, 2008) Washington, D.C.: National Public

Radio.

One Change. 2008. ‘‘Project Porchlight.’’ Available online at: http://

www.projectporchlight.com/

Parnell, R. and O. Popovic Larsen. 2005. ‘‘Informing the Development of Domestic

Energy Efficiency Initiatives: An Everyday Householder-Centered Framework.’’

Environment and Behavior 37(6):787–807.

Sanstad, Alan, W. Michael Hanemann, and Maximillian Auffhammer. 2006. ‘‘End

Use Energy Efficiency in a ‘‘Post Carbon’’ California Economy’’ (Ch 6) in Managing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California. Berkeley, CA: The California

Climate Change Center, UC–Berkeley.

Schultz P.W., J.M. Nolan, R.B. Cialdini, N.J. Goldstein, and V. Griskevicius. 2007.

‘‘The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms.’’

Psychological Science (May).

Stern, P.C. and E. Aronson. 1984. Energy Use: The Human Dimension. New York,

NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Thaler, Richard H. and Cass R. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions about

Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Turrentine , Thomas S. and Kenneth S. Kurani. 2006. ‘‘Car Buyers and fuel economy?’’ Energy Policy 35:1213–1223.

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

BIOGRAPHY FOR KAREN EHRHARDT-MARTINEZ

Karen Ehrhardt-Martinez is a Research Associate with the American Council for

an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). With more than 15 years of experience in

academic and applied research, Karen currently works in the Economic and Social

Analysis Program at ACEEE were she is responsible for leading the organization’s

efforts on the social and behavioral dimensions of energy efficiency and environmental change. Karen is currently serving as the Conference Chairman for the 2009

Behavior, Energy and Climate Change Conference to be held November 15th–18th

in Washington, D.C. Karen has a Ph.D. and M.A. in Sociology from The Ohio State

University and a Bachelor’s degree in International Studies.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you very much, Doctor.

Dr. McQuade.

STATEMENT OF DR. J. MICHAEL MCQUADE, SENIOR VICE

PRESIDENT, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Dr. MCQUADE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member

Inglis and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I am Michael McQuade, Senior Vice President for Science and Technology from United Technologies Corporation. I am pleased to share my thoughts about the need and opportunity to invest in basic research in building system science to dramatically reduce the energy consumed and carbon emitted by buildings.

We are very pleased with President Obama’s commitment to a

robust R&D agenda as expressed in his remarks yesterday at the

National Academy of Sciences. We believe that the investments in

building system science described here align directly with his vision and can be aggressively accomplished within the DOE portfolio of ARPA–E, EERE and the Office of Science.

We believe it is vital to pursue basic research in mathematical

and computational capabilities to optimize the design, construction,

commissioning and operation of complex buildings, in systems,

sciences and whole-building approaches and in multi-institutional

national laboratory, academia and industrial partnerships to prototype and demonstrate this science and technology in real buildings

across multiple real applications. Investments in the range of $50

million per year for five years will lead to deployable science, technology and products that will ensure that the full potential of energy savings are captured over the useful life of buildings. This is

a critical initiative to reducing energy consumption, decrease greenhouse gas emissions and improve this country’s energy security.

United Technologies is a $55 billion global aerospace and building infrastructure technology-driven company. As one of the leading suppliers to the built environment, we are keenly aware of, and

interested in, the role that buildings play in energy and climate. As

we have said multiple times today, buildings consume about 40

percent of the energy used in the United States and are responsible

for nearly 40 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions. To put this

in perspective, a 50 percent reduction in building energy consumption in the United States is equivalent to removing the carbon

emissions from every car and light truck on the road today in the

United States. These are very big numbers and they represent very

big opportunities.

64

UTC is a co-chair of the 14-company World Business Council for

Sustainable Development Project on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Yesterday this project released the first results from a landmark study on actions needed for reducing building energy consumption and the resulting carbon emissions. Among the key findings is that a transformation of the building industry is essential

and achievable if we are to reach the nearly 80 percent reduction

in carbon emissions called for by the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change. This study documents that significant progress

can be made against this goal with cost-effective deployment of energy-efficient components based on known technologies at marketacceptable investment costs. However, if we are to reach the full

80 percent reduction goal, we need new science that treats buildings as complex systems of interactive components coupled to their

occupants and to their external environment.

A recent DOE study cited six examples of high-performance

buildings whose design intent was to deliver as much as 80 percent

more efficient energy use than standard buildings. Through sub-optimal integration during the construction and operation phase,

these buildings actually delivered less than half this desired performance. UTC recommends that DOE continue its vital public-private partnerships to address energy-efficient building components,

and at the same time it is essential to increase the research, development and deployment of the science needed to understand and

optimize buildings as whole systems. With a deeper scientific base

enabled by mathematics, computational science and control

sciences, it is possible to combine energy-efficient components into

intelligent and even more efficient systems so that whole buildings

perform as designed and sustain that performance during a lifetime of operation.

UTC is a major supplier of energy-efficient products, but we also

are engaged in early-stage research in optimizing building systems.

For example, UTC is part of a collaboration of national laboratory,

academia and industry partners working to demonstrate advanced

control and information systems on the campus of the University

of California Merced’s campus. This program, partially sponsored

by the DOE’s EERE office, is showing that through the use of advanced building control algorithms, an additional 10 to 15 percent

energy consumption reduction in the campus cooling delivery system and up to a 20 percent additional energy savings for campus

building HVAC systems can be achieved.

We believe that a vigorous investment in the range of $50 million

per year for five years will deliver significant new science that can

be deployed into public and private built environments. This technology will serve as the basis for products that the private sector

will develop to make highly efficient energy-efficient buildings the

norm in the commercial marketplace.

Energy efficiency and carbon reduction are critical strategies for

climate control and energy security. The building sector represents

a larger opportunity for greenhouse gas emission reductions than

either the transportation or industry sectors. An enhanced national

research strategy in building sciences coupled with the already

strong DOE program in energy-efficient components for buildings

will provide the foundation for industry to deploy market-driven soVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
65

lutions to reduce building energy. We look forward to working with

Congress and the DOE to advance this critical national need.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

[The prepared statement of Dr. McQuade follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. MICHAEL MCQUADE

Summary

The building sector consumes about 40 percent of the energy used in the United

States and is responsible for nearly 40 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

In addressing GHG reductions in the building sector the Department of Energy

(DOE), in collaboration with the private sector, should continue to develop and deploy energy efficient building components (lighting, heating, ventilation, air conditioning and other elements). At the same time, there is an important push for research and development in science and technology to understand and optimize a

whole building via a ‘‘systems’’ approach that ensures that efficiency gains are properly designed and also sustained during building operation.

UTC is one of the largest capital suppliers to the building industry worldwide. As

such, the development of both sustainable and energy efficient products is of critical

importance to UTC, its suppliers and the markets and customers that it serves.

UTC takes an active industry role in addressing building energy usage. Key findings

of the three-year World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)

project on Energy Efficiency in Buildings (EEB), for which UTC is a co-chair, are

that transformation of the building industry is essential to achieving the 77 percent

reduction of carbon emissions called for by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC). The transformation of the building sector to reach the carbon emissions goal can occur only through a combination of public policies, technological innovation and informed customer choices. These reductions require:

• Mandated federal building codes that recast regulation for increased transparency on energy use; and

• Ensuring buildings operate as designed by developing and using smart technology to enable and assure continued energy saving behaviors.

Among the key recommendations are:

• Creation and enforcement of building energy efficiency codes and labeling

standards

• Incentivizing energy-efficient investments

• Encouraging integrated design approaches and innovations

• Funding energy savings technology development programs

• Developing workforce capacity for energy saving

• Mobilizing for an energy-aware culture

The current design, construction, commissioning and operation phases of the delivery process for buildings allows for efficiency decay that often fails to deliver optimal energy savings. Achieving approximately 80 percent energy reduction in buildings requires new research and development (R&D) investments in a systems approach to design and operations.

Two types of R&D investments are needed to attack the sources of energy efficiency decay: (1) investments in computational capabilities with specific attention to

modeling, analysis, simulation and control of buildings and (2) targeted programs

to combine fundamental science & technology with market impact to address specific market verticals in a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

style model of projects.

The R&D initiatives to enhance building efficiency and functionality are only one

element of a comprehensive national strategy to achieve net zero energy buildings.

Other elements should include: the use of Energy Savings Performance Contracts

(ESPC); mandated and regular energy audits; implementation of a national performance-based retrofit program; the establishment of a national energy efficiency standard; support for demonstrations and deployment of emerging technologies and products; education and workforce training; development of a building technology roadmap; and financial incentives.

Introduction

As the House Science and Technology Committee considers R&D needs for highperformance buildings, United Technologies Corporation (UTC) offers recommendaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
66

tions on cost effective, innovative and environmentally friendly ways to address energy efficiency using a whole building or a ‘‘systems’’ approach.

UTC ranks #37 on the latest Fortune 500 listing and is one of 30 members of the Dow Jones Industrials. Our 2008 revenues were $58.7 billion. UTC products include:

Carrier heating, air conditioning and refrigeration; Otis elevators and escalators;

Pratt & Whitney aircraft engines; Sikorsky helicopter; Hamilton Sundstrand aerospace systems and industrial products; UTC Fire & Security systems; and UTC

Power fuel cells. We are a company of innovators and pioneers. Elisha Otis invented

the safety elevator that made multi-story buildings usable; Willis Carrier invented

modern air conditioning—just to mention two examples. So, as one of the largest

suppliers to the global building industry and a leader in energy reduction, both in

our own operations and through energy efficient innovations in our products and

services, UTC brings a credible voice to the policy debate.

UTC takes an active industry role in addressing building energy usage. As a cochair of the three-year long World Business Council for Sustainable Development

(WBCSD) project on Energy Efficiency in Buildings (EEB), along with thirteen other

major multinational corporations representing various aspects of building design,

construction, delivery and operations, UTC is working to identify the barriers, levers, and necessary actions to achieve market transformation and a much needed

pathway to net zero energy buildings (NZEB)—those buildings that, over a period

of a year, consume no energy. Among other important findings is the fact that professionals in the building industry have widely underestimated the impact of buildings on carbon emissions (by a factor of two) while significantly overestimating the

cost of sustainable construction (by a factor of three). This knowledge gap is just

one of several barriers to market transformation of the building sector.

The EEB report released on April 27, 2009 finds that transformation of the building industry to achieve the IPCC 77 percent reduction of carbon emissions would

require:

• Mandated building energy codes that recast regulation for increased transparency on energy use; and

• Ensuring buildings operate as designed by developing and using smart technology to enable and assure continued energy saving behaviors.

The EEB report recommendations can be summarized as:

• Create and enforce building energy efficiency codes and labeling standards

Æ Extend current codes and tighten over time

Æ Display energy performance labels

Æ Conduct energy inspections and audits on a regular basis (not one time).

This supports the continuous commissioning process now gaining favor

among advanced energy users.

• Incentivize energy-efficient investments

Æ Establish tax incentives, subsidies and creative financial models to lower

first-cost and technology adoption hurdles

• Encourage integrated design approaches and innovations

Æ Improve contractual terms to promote integrated design teams

Æ Incentivize integrated team formation

• Fund energy savings technology development programs

Æ Accelerate rates of efficiency improvement for energy technologies

Æ Improve building control systems to fully exploit energy saving opportunities

• Develop workforce capacity for energy saving

Æ Create and prioritize training and vocational programs

Æ Develop ‘‘system integrator’’ profession

• Mobilize for an energy-aware culture

Æ Promote behavior change and improve understanding across the sector

Æ Businesses and governments lead by acting on their building portfolios

Examples of UTC Energy Efficient Building Technologies

Increasing efficiency in buildings boosts productivity through the reduction of energy costs. Developing better products that improve energy efficiency offers new

67

1Throughout each of these stages, the influence of federal, State, and local regulation should

be acknowledged. Current design and construction protocols, implemented through myriad

building and other codes and regulations, can have an enormous impact on building energy performance.

market opportunities. In 2006, George David, at that time the CEO and Chairman

of UTC, spoke at the WBCSD meeting in Beijing:

‘‘The lessons I bring from UTC are that we can always reduce costs and increase

productivity and performance. The same is true for environmental impacts and

potentially to an even greater degree because companies generally haven’t worked

at these as hard as they have at costs and corporate profitability. Remember that

more than 90 percent of the energy coming out of the ground is wasted and

doesn’t end as useful. This is the measure of what’s in front of us and why we

should be excited.’’

In addition to our collaborative efforts within the WBCSD, UTC is also engaged

in developing energy efficient products for buildings including:

• Otis’ Gen2 elevators with regenerative drives: Up to 75 percent more energy

efficient than comparable equipment a decade ago, the Gen2 sends its excess

power back to the building’s electrical grid.

• Carrier’s Evergreen tri-rotor screw chiller: The world’s most efficient watercooled chiller delivers 40 percent higher efficiency than current ASHRAE 90.1

efficiency standards.

• Carrier and UTC Power’s combined heat and power (CHP) products: These

products put ‘‘waste heat’’ from prime movers, such as fuel cells and microturbines, to productive use by driving heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment, boosting efficiency from around 33 percent based on the

individual components to nearly 80 percent in the total integrated system. Locating the system at the point of use allows the building to productively use

the waste heat and avoid transmission line losses. The on-site attribute is a

key component of optimizing the system’s performance.

A number of investments have been made at UTC and a number of federal and

State programs that can be utilized to move to increased energy efficiency in buildings. The UTC experience in deploying and supporting energy efficient products to

the global building sector and providing a range of energy services has convinced

us that a systems approach will result in even greater gains.

Understanding Energy Losses in the Delivery Process: Targeting R&D

Achieving energy savings through increasing building efficiency gains represents

a tremendous opportunity. The building sector consumes about 40 percent of the energy used in the United States and is responsible for nearly 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. For comparison, the entire transport sector represents only 28

percent of energy use. A 50 percent reduction in buildings’ energy usage would be

equivalent to taking every passenger vehicle and small truck in the United States

off the road. A 70 percent reduction in buildings’ energy usage is equivalent to

eliminating the energy consumption of the entire U.S. transportation sector. These

levels of energy reduction in buildings are achievable but the United States today

lacks the market drivers as well as the underlying science and technology infrastructure (including scientific and engineering workforce) to broadly realize these

levels of efficiency improvements in cost-effective ways. Setting a targeted and aggressive R&D agenda is necessary to position the United States effectively and a

well-executed R&D agenda is critical to increasing the competitive position of the

United States.

The building sector is made up of multiple stakeholders and decision-makers, including State & local government regulators, builders, architects, service and repair

companies, owners, realtors, product manufacturers and energy suppliers. The delivery process for buildings can be divided into design, construction, and maintenance

phases. It is important to highlight how energy efficiency losses occur in this process.1

Owners, architects and architecture & engineering firms set the building design

and consider their usage, aesthetics and the energy consumption. The design stage

has the highest leverage in the overall delivery process by selecting the architecture

and constraining the overall design space. The selection of design elements can significantly enhance—or limit—the ultimate performance depending on how these elements interact. For example, increasing daylighting can influence the amount of

lighting that is needed which in turn affects the overall heating and cooling load.

68

2D.L. Brown, J. Bell, D. Estep, W. Gropp, B. Hendrickson, S. Keller-McNulty, D. Keyes, J.T.

Oden, L. Petzold, and M. Wright. Applied Mathematics: A Report by an Independent Panel from

the Applied Mathematics Research Community. Technical report, Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory, 2008.

These interactions can alter the energy consumption in beneficial or detrimental

ways.

The next stage of delivery is construction. Here, components are considered

against cost and schedule targets, and typically do not capture the integrated elements of design that are key to efficient energy performance of the whole building.

The last stage, or two stages, relate to the so-called commissioning and post-occupancy, or operations phase of the building. Commissioning should start during design and not just at the tail end of construction. The point to highlight here is that

the design intent must be verified and the operations must ensure persistence of

design intent.

As a result the current delivery process has energy efficiency losses at four points,

outlined below, which represent major barriers to achieving the energy performance

transformation required in the broad building stock:

1. Design: Inadequate design exploration and the efficacy of the tools that can

be deployed for critical trade studies;

2. Construction: Inadequate coupling of design intent to value engineering

needed to maintain the energy performance intended by design;

3. Commissioning: Ensuring that the construction process and installation

have been faithful to the design intent with respect to whole building energy

performance and not just functional tests at a component level;

4. Operations: Ensuring persistence of the design intent as components age

and the building changes usage due to movement of tenants and different

occupant needs and as operators override the intended operating sequences.

It is critical to understand where energy efficiency is lost to be able to target

R&D.

R&D Elements For A Systems Approach

A systems approach can reduce the energy efficiency losses by identifying and controlling the interactions among building subsystems. In this way it is possible to

drive down energy consumption dramatically and to ensure that these energy savings persist. It is critical, though, to understand that the substantial science and

technology base to reliably and in a cost effective manner realize such savings in

the market simply does not exist today.

Two basic flaws in the current design and operation of buildings contribute to

poor energy performance. First, the design and construction of commercial buildings

do not utilize metrics or tools to identify and quantify critical interactions, or ‘‘coupling,’’ between subsystems. Computational tools are not used initially in the design

phase nor are these couplings tracked during the changing construction process.

Second, the coupling between subsystems are neither monitored nor controlled to

avoid the erosion of performance in operation of the building.

The reality of today’s methodology and tools is that attempting to couple subsystems—even using higher performance (efficient) components than are routinely

used today—does not regularly deliver the levels of efficiency gains needed and, in

some cases, produces negative effects from improper integration. Case studies show

that even new buildings that are constructed with state-of-the-art ‘‘energy efficient’’

technologies can fail to achieve desired levels of efficiency due to the detrimental

coupling of modified subsystems. A study of high-performance buildings by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) demonstrated that even with a range

of advanced component technology (ground source heat pumps, an under floor air

distribution system, daylighting, and high-performance windows), when the systems

were not properly integrated, the building measured a 44 percent reduction ratio

versus 80 percent when all components were fully integrated. Unfortunately, the

NREL results are not atypical and represent a significant barrier to wide scale

adoption of high-performance integrated building systems.

The systems approach considers a building as a complex dynamic system that has

considerable uncertainty in both operating parameters and the operating environment. Indeed, the Brown report2 states:

A complex system is a collection of multiple processes, entities or nested subsystems where the overall system is difficult to understand and analyze because

of the following properties:

69

• The system components do not necessarily have mathematically similar

structures and may involve different scales in time or space;

• The number of components may be large, sometimes enormous;

• Components can be connected in a variety of different ways, most often

nonlinearly and/or via a network. Furthermore, local and system-wide

phenomena may depend on each other in complicated ways;

• The behavior of the overall system can be difficult to predict from the behavior of individual components. Moreover, the overall system behavior

may evolve along qualitatively different pathways that may display great

sensitivity to small perturbations at any stage.

Such systems are often described as ‘‘multi-component systems,’’ or when the

components are physics based, ‘‘multi-physics systems.’’ When the components involve multiple spatial or temporal scales, the adjective ‘‘multi-scale’’ can be used

as well.

The challenges for buildings reflect precisely those stated for complex systems: to

predict the overall behavior, which depends critically on the coupling of the subsystems, and the uncertainties in the built environment.

The coupling of components is difficult to achieve and requires the development

and use of new science and engineering approaches to avoid the detrimental coupling discussed in the NREL work mentioned above. New science, design methodologies and tools will then be used to capture the complex couplings, enable the deployment of technologies that can take advantage of the natural dynamics of the building (e.g., natural ventilation, free cooling, and thermal storage).

More specifically, what is needed for targeted R&D relative to the picture of energy efficiency losses and the benefits of a systems approach for complex dynamical

systems. In our view several specific R&D elements at the science & technology

level should be established. We believe these recommendations are necessary in

order to meet the challenge laid out by Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu, in his

March 2009 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on

Science and Technology wherein he states:

We need to do more transformational research at DOE to bring a range of clean

energy technologies to the point where the private sector can pick them up, including: Computer design tools for commercial and residential buildings that enable reductions in energy consumption of up to 80 percent with investments that

will pay for themselves in less than 10 years; and . . ..

Computational R&D Thrusts

The foundational elements UTC believes will support this vision are computational support for design, optimization and control. Attention to modeling, analysis,

simulation and control is also advisable along the following directions:

• Systems Engineering and Design Methodologies

Æ Rigorous and scalable process and tool environment for building project

requirements management & system architecture exploration

Æ Integrated mechanical and control design methodology and simulation

environment

Æ Architectural exploration tools with rigorous capture of performance uncertainties

• Optimization and Control of Multi-scale Dynamics

Æ Analytical techniques for system decomposition, analysis and uncertainty

propagation in heterogeneous, networked, multi-scale building systems

Æ Optimization and simulation techniques for multi-scale computations

Æ Nonlinear dynamical systems theory tools to exploit natural dynamics

• Robust Control and Decision Support Algorithms

Æ Control and Commissioning Systems

Æ Supervisory and de-centralized control theory and algorithms

Æ Estimation and machine learning techniques to synthesize actionable information from heterogeneous, asynchronous and uncertain data streams

Æ Automated fault detection and diagnostic (FDD) capabilities using building automation systems

70

3See for example the PITAC report ‘‘Computational Science: Ensuring America’s Competitiveness,’’ June 2005. 4 BACnet is a data communication protocol for building automation and control networks.

BACnet was developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning

Engineers (ASHRAE) to create a protocol that would allow building systems from different manufacturers to inter-operate. 5 Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide, The American Institute of Architects, 2007.

The focus here is on computational capabilities. Hardware testbeds should be used

to validate models and capture the relevant physics for sub-scale experiments to

provide environments where subsystem interactions can be captured in a controlled

environment, and help identify gaps in existing components. There should be a

range of testbeds which move from sub-scale to full scale systems. The testbeds are

also a critical element to enable teaming between academic, National Laboratories

and industry and to facilitate adoption of new technologies by end-users.

It is worth emphasizing that these areas of R&D targets are not unfamiliar to

other industries.3 In the aerospace and automotive sectors, performance requirements have driven both investments in underlying science and technology along the

lines of computational support for design, optimization and control along the lines

listed above.

UTC has partnered with numerous federal and State agencies to further technology and standards development. In particular the United Technologies Research

Center led, proposed and executed a National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST) Advanced Technology Program project, ‘‘Integrated Building Energy and

Control Systems (IBECS),’’ that focused on system-level modeling and simulation

environments as a means of understanding and reducing building energy consumption. UTC is developing advanced control and information systems to improve energy efficiency in buildings using a systems approach to building modeling and operation in collaboration with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the University

of California at Berkeley, and the University of California at Santa Barbara, and

seeks to demonstrate those technologies on the University of California at Merced’s

campus. This program, co-sponsored by DOE’s Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, the California Energy Commission, and UTC, represents an example of multidisciplinary teams composed of industry, academia and National Laboratories. The

program’s work is also an example of full scale demonstrations that must be carried

out to enable risk reduction of new technologies in building energy performance but

that utilize foundational science and technology.

In addition to the development of science & technology, a number of UTC business

units participate in standards bodies. Work in inter-operability with the BACnet4

standard has been led by Automated Logic Corporation (ALC) while engagement

with the ASHRAE 90.1 standard has been strongly engaged by Architectural Energy

Corporation (AEC), both of which are units of Carrier.

R&D Thrusts to Fuse Foundational Science & Technology with Market

Transformation

The building industry in the area of energy consumption lags behind other industries in the use of computation, theory and information technology. Also, while the

automotive and aerospace industries serve as a starting point in what is needed for

the science and technology base, much work needs to be done to understand the relevant physics, capture the physics into appropriate modeling tools, and develop computational and analysis algorithms. Furthermore, additional work is necessary to

tailor research to the needs of buildings and to enable a work force that can effectively use the new methodology and tool set. These efforts transcend any one company and are therefore appropriate for DOE investments.

Computational infrastructure is critical to remove points where energy efficiency

is potentially lost and to enabling cost effective scaling of new design processes such

as the Integrated Project Delivery approach for concurrent engineering advocated by

the industry.5 This R&D thrust by itself, though, is not enough to achieve transformational change. We believe that DARPA style investments, such as those that

could be accomplished within the Office of Science in the newly created ARPA–E

organization, are also necessary. We believe that large, multi-institutional, focused

teams with specific milestones and aggressive metrics are necessary to advance energy performance enhancement solutions. One area that could utilize such investments is the design and operation of retrofits. In this area investments are needed

that develop and utilize science and technology but also include prototyping and

technology demonstration at scale.

In the area of retrofitting, R&D targets should include similar elements to those

recommended above for the computational development but should target specific

71

technologies and increase the performance of targeted market verticals. Elements of

such an R&D program should include the following:

• Building performance assessment

— Need: Process and tools for rapid failure mode assessment, sensing,

model calibration, and analysis of the lack of building performance.

— Response: Mathematical tools, measurement systems, scalable algorithms and application (for example focusing on DOD, GSA, and university campuses).

• Design of systems for effective and robust retrofits

— Need: Process and tools for trade studies and optimization of multi-scale

dynamic systems (focusing especially on emerging technologies: active

facades, natural ventilation, passive heating and cooling technologies).

— Response: Tools (integrated within BIM) and application.

• Robust and persistent implementation

— Need: Modular platforms (equipment and controls) and decision support

(for rapid implementation and performance persistence).

— Response: Scalable, simple-to-use toolset, DOD/GSA/campus implementation.

In summary there should be two types of R&D investments to attack the sources

of energy efficiency loss. One is investments in computational infrastructure. The

other is large, targeted programs to attack specific issues and market verticals and

to couple the science & technology with demonstrations.

We believe that a heavier focus on fundamentals in the R&D portfolio than has

occurred in the recent DOE history is required to move the needle on energy consumption in buildings. We believe that the two specific thrusts above are needed

in addition to tighter coordination between elements of DOE, specifically, the computational resources within the Office of Science and the building domain expertise

and demonstrations currently within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

office.

Policy Recommendations: Comprehensive National Strategy

The House Science and Technology Committee must address the potential future

contributions that can be made from supporting and overseeing basic and applied

scientific research, development, demonstration, commercial application of advanced

energy technologies, and energy efficiency. But this is just one piece of the jigsaw

puzzle.

In the short-term, Congress should take immediate steps to encourage and enhance building efficiency. Specifically, Congress should enact legislation that promotes investment in energy efficiency in the buildings sector, for example The

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided tax incentives to spur investment in energy efficiency, funding for energy efficiency and green buildings and

support for various science and technology programs.

Congress should continue to focus on energy efficiency in buildings as it considers

comprehensive energy and climate change policy through a number of relatively

short-term measures including:

• Use of Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC) that will multiply the

job creation potential of recovery funds used for energy efficiency projects, and

will ensure those funds are used in a transparent and verifiable manner.

• Establishment of a national performance based standard for building retrofits

that measures success in energy efficiency based on actual measured savings

after a retrofit is complete.

• Energy audits for existing buildings should be required to ensure that existing property is operating at the highest level of efficiency. All commercial

buildings should commit to ongoing (i.e., at least every three years) energy

surveys to measure and monitor energy use, and to identify opportunities for

improvement.

• Those who invest in reducing energy consumption and demonstrate validated

results should be eligible for accelerated deprecation schedules or other financial incentives.

• Establishment of a national energy efficiency standard either as a stand alone

requirement or included as a compliance mechanism as part of a national reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
72

newable electricity standard to encourage low emission, high efficiency base

load energy resources.

• A systems approach to tying these technologies together in commercial buildings and removing regulatory barriers to implementing near- and long-term

cost-effective net zero energy building approaches.

In the longer-term, UTC believes that in order for investments to fully realize the

benefits of whole building design and operation, the DOE and other agencies must

address a number of science and technology issues including:

• Recommendation I: Measurement and Transparency.

The Federal Government, especially the Department of Energy and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, should consider establishing

measurement science for building energy performance and devising common

measurement standards and metrics to ensure that building energy performance can be effectively evaluated by the marketplace. Such evaluation should

include the measurement of energy efficiency at the whole building level both

in the design stage, using computational methodologies, as well as in the

commissioning and operations stages.

• Recommendation II: Technology and Organization.

The Federal Government should create specific research programs implemented through private-public partnerships to maximize the effectiveness of

technology development and transition. Research and technology investments

must be made in systems: the creation of system engineering practices and

associated design processes and tools. The newly established Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA–E) is supported by UTC and the recommendation is to create an office within ARPA–E whose investments would

solely focus on systems methodologies, tools and technologies for building energy efficiency. Projects in the ARPA–E portfolio should be conducted on a

multi-year basis with joint university-National Laboratory-industry teams.

• Recommendation III: Computational Methodology and Tools.

The Federal Government should initiate programs that build foundational infrastructure in modeling, simulation, analysis and controls focused on building systems. The portfolio should include elements that address (a) capturing

fundamental physics, (b) developing simulation algorithms and computational

infrastructure tailored to building physics and (c) developing analysis tailored

to the specific dynamics of the built environment. Automated fault detection

and diagnostics would be included in this set of tools.

• Recommendation IV: Facilities.

The Federal Government should encourage public-private partnerships with

incentives to promote facilities that help users validate and test the performance of hardware and software in a real, integrated building environment to

reduce risk and enable wide-scale commercialization, particularly for ‘‘systems’’ technologies and solutions. Demonstration projects to engage key stakeholders in the buildings industry will reduce risk for deployment to the entire

building stock. The DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program

portfolio should be augmented with systems technology and methods should

be matured through relevant demonstration programs that are planned and

executed with joint multi-disciplinary university-National Laboratory-industry teams.

• Recommendation V: Talent.

The Federal Government should invest in education and training carried out

to define the new knowledge and skills required by the methods, systems, and

tools for deploying and maintaining systems. University and government

buildings and facilities should be used as case studies and demonstration

sites for advanced monitoring, control, simulation models, prototypes, component, and systems research. There must be engagement with all components

of post secondary education including professional and vocational training

with community colleges and other organizations for building design, construction, commissioning, energy analysis, energy accounting, and operations

to ensure a talent base that can design, install and maintain building systems.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony to the Committee. I would

be delighted to respond to any follow up questions regarding this testimony or the

recommendations contained within.

73

BIOGRAPHY FOR J. MICHAEL MCQUADE

J. Michael McQuade is Senior Vice President for Science & Technology at United

Technologies Corporation. His responsibilities include providing strategic oversight

and guidance for research, engineering and development activities throughout the

business units of the Corporation and at the United Technologies Research Center.

He also provides leadership to UTC Power, UTC’s business unit responsible for the

research, design, commercialization and after-market support of stationary and

transportation fuel cells.

McQuade has held senior positions with technology development and business

oversight at 3M, Imation and Eastman Kodak. Prior to joining UTC in 2006 he

served as Vice President of 3M’s Medical Division. Previously, he was President of

Eastman Kodak’s Health Imaging Business. Earlier, McQuade held technology and

business leadership positions at Imation Corporation after its spin-off from 3M in

1996. His early career at 3M was focused on research and development of high-end

acquisition, processing and display systems for health care, industrial imaging and

remote sensing. He has broad experience managing basic technologies and the conversion of early stage research into business growth.

McQuade holds doctorate, Master of Science and Bachelor of Science degrees in

physics from Carnegie Mellon University. He obtained his Ph.D. in experimental

high-energy physics for research on hadronic charm quark production performed at

the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.

McQuade is a member of the American Physical Society and is a member of the

Boards of Directors of the Connecticut Science Center, the Connecticut Technology

Council and the advisory boards of the Schools of Engineering at Yale University,

the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Connecticut and the Institute for Energy Efficiency at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He

is also a member of the Board of Trustees for the Center for Excellence in Education

and Board of Directors of Project HOPE.

United Technologies Corp., based in Hartford, Conn., is a diversified company providing high technology products and services to the aerospace and building industries worldwide. Its businesses include Pratt & Whitney aircraft engines, Sikorsky

helicopters, Hamilton Sundstrand commercial and military airplane and spacebased systems, Carrier heating, air conditioning and refrigeration equipment, Otis

elevators and escalators, Chubb and Kidde security and fire detection and prevention systems, and the world leading fuel cell products from UTC Power.

DISCUSSION

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you very much. I thank all the panelists

for very, very informative and stimulating input. We will now proceed with questioning. The procedure basically is that each of us

asks about five minutes’ worth of questions and then we alternate

sides. We have been joined as well by Ms. Edwards. You are right

to be proud of your Representative. She is a fantastic Member of

this Congress. Ms. Giffords was here a moment ago, Mr. Matheson

and Mr. Tonko as well, all very active, committed Members of the

Committee, very interested in this. We are grateful for their presence as well and we will proceed then with questions.

AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY

What strikes me as I listen to you folks is that clearly the 40 percent figure is a very, very prominent part of our energy equation.

It seems to me that all of you have a fundamental role to play. To

what extent—we have got this great gathering of experts here on

this committee. To what extent do you actually work together in

the real world? And by that, I mean to what extent does DOE work

with each of you, to what extent does, for example, UT work with

the social behavioral side, does social behavioral side work with the

code side, with the industrial—talk to us a little bit about that.

74

Can you do more? Do you do enough? How can we facilitate that?

Mr. Coad.

Mr. COAD. Mr. Chairman, getting on Dr. Ehrhardt’s subject, I believe that energy and the proper use of energy is an ethic. I think

we have to find some way to get the public, the people to adopt the

ethic. Energy efficiency isn’t—this isn’t rocket science. This is very

simple. When you walk out of the room, you turn off the light.

When you are not using the building, you put it on an idle mode

and you don’t leave it running 24 hours a day because you are only

occupying it for eight. So I think we work together. I learn a lot

from being around people like we have on the panel and this subcommittee. We are continually learning. Energy efficiency is not

rocket science.

Chairman BAIRD. But we still need this integrated approach.

Mr. COAD. It has to be integrated right on through but it is not

rocket science, and when we talk about efficiency, we are talking

about doing things more efficiently but doing the same work, keeping the same productivity up. That is what the high-performance

is all about.

Chairman BAIRD. I have advocated, and some of my colleagues

tire of me saying this but after various trips around the world and

seeing what is happening to rain forests, icecaps, coral reefs, my

own belief is, we ought to make a national commitment to a 20 percent reduction in energy in 20 weeks, not by 2020 but 20 weeks,

and I think we have evidence that it can done if there were an

ethic and if we used behavioral sciences and if we integrated with

the technology, and by the way, as some of you said, that is not

true necessarily. We do have to use the gee whiz new technologies,

maybe solar, photovoltaic paint, et cetera, things of that sort, but

we could do this behaviorally without additional costs and an enormous savings very promptly.

Dr. Ehrhardt-Martinez, talk to us a little bit about the social scientists can integrate with some of the other testimony we have

heard today.

Dr. EHRHARDT-MARTINEZ. Well, I think, you know, to a certain

degree it does happen. The problem is that to a large degree it

doesn’t happen in a systematic way or a widespread way, and particularly I think there is a lot to be gained within the DOE programs for a more concerted effort to really include the social

sciences at all stages and throughout all of the programs that they

work on. You know, it has been—if you look at all of the funding

that has gone to climate change research, two percent or less has

gone to the social and behavioral sciences. It is a minuscule

amount, but yet, as I said in my testimony, you know, there really—you know, if we really—it really is a human problem. I mean,

it is a human-created problem, and if we really want to understand

how to address this problem, we really need to incorporate the social and behavioral sciences to unlock, you know, the knowledge

that exists and apply it to these questions about why is there these

two persisting gaps between what the technology can provide in

terms of energy savings and what is really provided. It is a human

equation.

Chairman BAIRD. Let us ask Mr. Chalk then a little bit. What

Dr. Ehrhardt-Martinez has said I obviously agree with and I think

75

we have abundant evidence to it. Mr. Coad pointed out there is an

ethic, it is a behavioral element. Given that, to what extent does

DOE involve human behavioral sciences, whether it is economics,

psychology, sociology, et cetera, even anthropology in some cases

maybe, to these various programs that it oversees on building industrial efficiency?

Mr. CHALK. Well, specifically, this is an important area. In fact,

we are in the process of hiring somebody with a behavioral science

background. But to answer your earlier question about how we

work, I mean, Mr. Cicio mentioned he is pleased with our industrial program, which is another 33 percent——

Chairman BAIRD. Did you pay him to say that?

Mr. CHALK.—of the primary energy. So we are talking about 70

percent of the primary energy here today with industrial plus the

building efficiency. The other thing that we have done in establishing our Commercial Buildings Initiative is worked with code organizations, worked with companies like UTC on the technology

but also built alliances across the whole value chain, working with

the realtors, working with the building owners, and the building

owners are typically not the people that occupy the buildings in the

commercial space so sometimes the building might be designed for

another purpose than the occupants are using it for or they decide

to run two shifts instead of one shift. So this gap that you have

between design intent and actual use of the building is very, very

critical, so we try to work with the whole value chain, if you will,

of retail associations and alliances. We have a national accounts

program that brings in big box developers and things like that. So

we try to work with the whole value chain until we get everybody’s

input when we approach this from a systems standpoint.

Chairman BAIRD. I want to acknowledge, Mr. Cicio, one brief

point about the realtors. One of my colleagues suggested or actually a realtor back home, one of the prime opportunities for doing

residential retrofits on energy efficiency is at the point of sale. So

once the selling party has vacated the home and the purchasing

party hasn’t moved in, that is when you hit and we ought to have

some way to target our incentives right at that moment because

you don’t disrupt everybody’s life. That is when you really ought

to—and we ought to be able to roll it right into the mortgage, and

if we are going to do some tax incentives put that tax incentive

right on at the point of the transfer of the home or the business

because that is when you are most able to do that kind of work.

Mr. Cicio, you wanted to comment and then I will recognize my

colleagues.

Mr. CICIO. Yes. The cross-hair where we as manufacturers cross

over and work with the building people, we are suppliers so when

we improve the quality of the products, the diversities of the products, whether it is for lighting or for simple things like double-pane

windows or glass insulation, we are the providers of those materials for them. Where the ITP program comes in is, it provides new

technologies, breakthrough technologies that help provide these

new needed materials, but also important is to help keep costs low

because obviously you have heard from Mr. Coad, it is about cost

and it is about economic return that helps drive energy efficiency.

76

Chairman BAIRD. So you are both consumers of energy in the

process of the manufacturing but producers of the new equipment

that is going to help us solve the problem?

Mr. CICIO. Absolutely.

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Inglis.

EXECUTING BEST PRACTICES IN THE PUBLIC

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I was talking

to a physician recently about health care and he says we all know

what we need to do, we need to eat well, we need to exercise, we

need to sleep plenty, we need to drink plenty of water, it is just

we don’t do it. And in the case of energy usage, we all know what

we need to do, right? It is just we don’t do it. So tell me how it

is that we are going to do it. I am hoping that one of you gives the

secret answer. There is a secret answer. So let us see if you know

it. Yes, Dr. McQuade.

Dr. MCQUADE. Thank you very much. If I may, I think it is a

very true statement. I think in the energy efficiency building study

that was released yesterday, the sort of we know what we should

do and the economics of doing it come together for something in the

range of 40 to 50 percent of the reduction that can be achieved. So

today’s technology, five-year paybacks, market incentives to achieve

that can really be accomplished. I think to go beyond that to

achieve the sort of hyper-performance we want in buildings, the 80

percent reduction is going to require a combination of new technologies and new systems, and I would say that thinking about the

things I testified today about building systems, those combined

with human factors and behavioral sciences really to create buildings, think about commercial buildings that actually tune and optimize themselves. So it is one thing, for example, to require or ask

someone behaviorally to turn the lights off when they leave the

room, it is another thing to install motion sensors to turn the lights

off automatically. So we think there is a key role that can be

played by both the technology side and the human factor side to

achieve that. So back to your question, I think a significant portion

of the technology base we have today can give us substantial reduction in building energy consumption, 40 to 50 percent. To go beyond that to achieve these really strong numbers is going to require the kind of things that you heard today in terms of both technology investment and human behavior investment.

Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Cicio.

Mr. CICIO. Congressman Inglis, for the manufacturing sector, it

is we are different, I would differ with you. The manufacturing sector’s greenhouse gas emissions are only 2.6 percent above 1990 levels while the commercial, the residential, the transportation and

the power sector greenhouse gas emissions are up on average about

30 percent, and the reason that we have—for two reasons we have

improved energy efficiency, it is a cost, and without reducing energy costs, we lose competitiveness. So we are the only sector. We

have always had the price signal to force down energy consumption. So we would differ in perspective of the others but can we do

more, yes, and we have lots of different ideas on that but technology is at the core of these things.

77

Mr. INGLIS. Take my house, for example. The reason it doesn’t

have a solar panel on the roof is because electricity is just so cheap.

I mean, it is not—the economics don’t work out for me to put even

a simple solar hot water heater, which isn’t that something like 30

percent of my home’s electricity or some amazing number? And I

have lived in South Carolina and we have a beautiful southern exposure and we don’t have a solar hot water heater. But it is because the economics don’t work out, right? Ben Franklin, ‘‘what we

obtain too cheaply we esteem too lightly,’’ and so if I obtain electricity so cheaply, I sure do esteem it lightly. Is that right, Dr.

Ehrhardt-Martinez?

Dr. EHRHARDT-MARTINEZ. I think that is definitely part of the

answer. I guess I would respond by asking you, you know, if in fact

you were able to establish something like smart grid technologies

and you were able to feed your electricity production from your

solar panels back into the electric system, how would that change

the equation and change your decision-making process?

Mr. INGLIS. I think it clearly would. It would change the economics. Because the secret answer I was looking for is, it is about economics here. It is about making it so that this works out for me

to put that solar hot water heater on my roof to make it so I want

to have that technology, and if I decide I want it because I am sort

of aware of the price signal, I will change my behavior. Is that

right?

Dr. EHRHARDT-MARTINEZ. Well, I would just add to that, I would

say that that is necessary but not sufficient. I think that there are

other factors that come into play. You know, just because it is economical doesn’t mean everybody is going to go out and do it, and

I think that we need to recognize that there are a variety of other

things, barriers, you know, sociocultural barriers, a variety of

things that also shape, you know, people’s decision-making process

and their habits and whatnot, and it is important to keep those in

mind as well. So, yes, it is one of the components but there are

other things going on as well.

Mr. INGLIS. So I have a bigger view of economics than you do

maybe but it is basically this, that, you know, as Tom Friedman

has written, we found out what it is. It is $4 a gallon changes behavior on gasoline because apparently one of the reasons that GM

killed the electric car is people didn’t want to plug in their car,

they said. But in the midst of $4-a-gallon gasoline, ask people in

town meetings, would you mind plugging in your car, there was nobody who resisted plugging in their car at $4 a gallon. And so it

sort of changes us, doesn’t it, when we realize gee, we must change.

And so just a short commercial with the Chairman’s indulgence.

That is why if we do something better than cap-and-trade, a revenue-neutral carbon tax, where you reduce taxes elsewhere so people have money in their pocket to buy some of these fabulous technologies and they have the price signal, they will do it. And of

course, I am sure there are some other barriers to be overcome but

necessity is the mother of invention, especially when it comes to

rising energy costs, and it would cause me to change my behavior.

I would be buying one of those solar hot water heaters for my roof.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am out of time.

78

Chairman BAIRD. I always appreciate the commercial announcement for the alternative which by coincidence I happen to support.

Ms. Edwards is recognized next for five minutes.

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think I will start

out with a question for someone from Bowie, Maryland, Dr.

Ehrhardt-Martinez. Thank you all for your testimony today.

CONSUMER EDUCATION AND BEHAVIOR

I am curious about this behavior question because I know in my

own home, I know plenty of things that I could do to reduce my

energy use in the home and to consume better, and I have only

done a couple of those things, and I often describe myself as heating and cooling only my cat for all of the space, and I think a lot

of folks are like that and so I wonder what realistically we can do

from a public policy perspective to push changes in behavior. I will

just give you an example, that a lot of our policy relies on things

like tax credits and so if you are, you know, in a working family,

middle class family, you know, to make the tradeoff between college tuition or daily expenses and changing your energy consumption in your house in exchange for a tax credit that is going to come

later on, makes that a very complicated decision and so I wonder

if you could talk from a policy perspective of things that we could

do to actually incentivize changes in consumer behavior.

Dr. EHRHARDT-MARTINEZ. Okay. That is a tough question. I think

that it is important to keep in mind that a lot of these investments

in energy efficiency are, you know, cost effective in that they do

pay for themselves over time so I think that, you know, that is

where we need to begin is to make sure that people are aware of

that and then to come up with mechanisms to help them overcome

barriers whether it is financial barriers or other types of barriers

for the people who are interested in actually pursuing those types

of changes. But we also have to recognize that there are—you

know, that the world is full of different kinds of people and that

different people face different barriers and live different lifestyles

and, you know, live in different conditions and have different resources at their disposal and so I think it is also important to recognize that while there are some people who like you are aware of,

you know, what needs to be done and perhaps need simply certain

incentives in order to do it, there are other people that maybe need,

you know, more information. And then it is also about how we provide that information and how we go about providing programs as

to whether or not those programs are more or less likely to be effective. So, for example, there is research on—there is a very long history of research on home retrofits and, you know, why some programs—and there is a huge amount of variation in terms of how

successful those programs have been in actually getting consumers

to have their homes retrofitted and generate energy savings as a

result, and one of the insights from that research has been that,

you know, the huge variation is more a function of how the programs are being implemented than they are of—I mean, so you can

have the same program that has the same incentive structure but

the way in which the program is implemented and the way that

information is, you know, distributed to people and things of that

nature have, you know, just a dramatic effect on the proportion of

79

people that actually participate in that program and are able to

reap the rewards.

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. And then my last question

for Mr. Chalk has to do with building efficiencies and the way that

buildings get described as being efficient. I know as kind of a, you

know, slightly outside—it is very confusing. I had folks in my office

just a week or so ago and they were describing that they met some

sort of environmental standard for their building, and I had no clue

what they were talking about. I don’t really understand the standards. I think there is a wide variation in the ways in which people

can describe their buildings and the efficiencies of those buildings

and I think that we need to clear that up so that builders and developers have some sort of and consumers comparing apples to apples.

Mr. CHALK. Yes, we have a label much like buying an appliance.

It is an energy guide label. It tells you how much electricity a refrigerator uses. So we have developed with the building community

a label that says this house is rated at this energy use and you will

pay approximately this much in average utility bills for all your

loads whether it is thermal or electric.

Ms. EDWARDS. But what about commercial buildings?

Mr. CHALK. For commercial buildings, we are just beginning the

Commercial Buildings Initiative and there in reference to your previous question it is very difficult because the owner of the building

who pays for the construction is not the one that pays the energy

bills so we need to work with both groups then to decide how to

incentivize, what are the right policy mechanisms that need to be

evaluated to incentivize greater energy efficiency. But back to the

home. When you buy a house, you have to have a termite inspection. If you also had to see the energy use of that house, then that

would also be something very valuable and that is what we working on so we would have greater adoption in there so that consumers are informed as they go and buy a house, you know, maybe

they can afford the mortgage, which is the first cost of the house,

but the utility bill is typically not included in that, in the mortgage,

so we need folks to realize what their energy bill is going to be as

they purchase the house.

Ms. EDWARDS. I think my time has expired. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the panel

for being here. This is one of my favorite topics even though I spent

35 years on it so far but it never ceases to amaze me how difficult

it is to get people to change their behavior, so I am very pleased

you have Dr. Ehrhardt-Martinez here to enlighten us on that. I

think one of the biggest factors, and I am speaking now as a physicist, the public just doesn’t understand energy. They don’t know

what it is and how it can happen, and a number of times I have

given speeches talking about how I wish energy were purple because if people could see the energy, they would behave differently.

If they drove up to the house in the winter and saw purple oozing

through the walls and purple rivulets around the doors and windows, they would say good grief, I have got to tighten up this

house, and similarly with other activities. As it is, the only concrete

80

evidence the average citizen sees about energy costs is the price at

the gas pump and utility bill at the end of the month, and that is

not enough. There have to be other ways.

Mr. Chalk, this is not intended to criticize you because I think

the Energy Department is starting to change dramatically but it

was very frustrating to me in my 15 years here to see so little

being done by the Department of Energy to assist in this problem.

In fact, the only real program I am aware of during the early years

I was here was the EPA where they had their Green Lights Program, went around to various businesses, pointed out how they

could save money if they put different lighting in, and if you show

a businessperson that there is a payback time of about eight

months, they put in a new lighting system, and the EPA did a fantastic job of that. My only criticism is that the Department of Energy, knowing the issue, should have done it long before. I think

we have to hit all of these things and it is not easy. For example,

I was upset with a poorly insulated attic in a house we bought so

I determined to insulate it properly, and in a cold climate, part of

that means you fill up every hole, you know, rafters, beams and so

forth because when the electricians come through they just bore a

hole through, put the wire through and that only occupies about a

third of the size of the hole so that hole is leaking all the time up

into the attic. I could not for any reasonable price get someone to

come in and really do the insulation correctly so I did it myself.

Our utility bill or gas bill, I should say, since we use gas for heat,

was reduced by one-third, and because I didn’t count my labor, that

meant in a space of about a year I paid off the entire project. Now,

that is a really good return on investment, but until we educate or

require all those working on insulation to really understand what

insulation does—and it has been so frustrating to me over the

years to find how many people in the business don’t really understand it. And I loved the example of where someone was building

homes in a tract and somebody came by and noticed that they put

formaldehyde insulation on the outside of the concrete shell but

they stopped at ground level. They said why did you do that; well,

we don’t need it up here, it is just you need it down below to protect from all that cold in the ground. And they had no recognition

that even though concrete has a very high heat capacity, in other

words, it can store a lot of energy, it is also a very good conductor

of heat so 48 inches of concrete is equivalent of 1 inch of formaldehyde foam insulation. If you don’t know that, you are going to build

a house the way he did. If he knew that, he would have built it

in a much more energy-efficient way. So I think education is very

important.

Now, the country is going to get much worse. We are always

talking here about carbon footprints and everyone in the Congress

is worried about that. That is not the real point. The real point Mr.

Coad alluded to. He said we are going to run out of oil by 2010.

Actually that is not right. That is when the production peaks, the

Hubbert curve. So then it is half gone. But it does mean that it is

going to be continually more expensive as we go on, and if the public responds only to money, then we are in bad shape because we

are going to be quite a ways down the peak before they start doing

the things. I really think it has to be a combination of the work

81

you do, the combination that we should be doing in the Congress

to make sure the public is well educated but through tax credits

persuade them to do something which is just marginally effective.

Thank you.

Chairman BAIRD. Excellent comments, Dr. Ehlers.

Mr. Matheson would be next and then followed by Mr. Tonko.

Mr. MATHESON. I am happy to go, Mr. Chairman.

RETROFITTING

Mr. Chalk, just a quick question. What do you—what would you

need to have a successful retrofit program at DOE? I know funding

is going to be one answer but I am looking for other things in addition to funding that you think you need that would help make that

happen.

Mr. CHALK. A combination of things, and the retrofits are very

important because as we talked about earlier, we can do 30, 40 percent on a cost-neutral basis now for new construction. Retrofits are

much harder. Ms. Edwards was talking about there are other priorities for homeowners and so forth. So what we need, we have the

R&D and we have been investing much more in commercial buildings research. What we need to do though is, we have been emphasizing and optimizing individual components like the HVAC, lighting, windows and so forth. We need to do more in integrating those

components. There are tradeoffs. So, you know, when the climate

changes outside, the windows are talking to the lights which are

talking to—communicating with the HVAC system so that all of

these things are working together for total optimization of the

building and it is tied to the occupants whether they are there or

not and to what type of activity. So systems control and integration

of all these components from an R&D standpoint is the top priority,

that with the right policy and finance because it is always the first

cost that is the barrier. So if there are incentives for longer-term

financing, that would be very helpful because these technologies do

pay back but they may not pay back for eight, ten years. But that

is okay. The building is typically in the inventory for more than 50,

so I think we can do this. And the last piece is really workforce

training that has been mentioned to make sure that people know

how to install correctly, and as part of our weatherization program

where we weatherize low-income housing, we offer training assistance so that people are doing that correctly and we have inspectors

and so forth. So the combination of R&D, the right policies and financing as well as a strong deployment effort where we can demonstrate these technologies to folks where we actually—and one of

the issues with the codes is, when you start out with a code it is

really the design intent. We are not doing enough to follow up the

actual measurement verification of energy use. We need to do that,

disseminate that information and then combine that with workforce training, not just for the installers but also the building operators so they know how to change as the activity changes within

the building, that they are continuously optimizing. So we almost

need a brain or a CPU for the building, would be ideal, a dashboard, so that people could—otherwise they are just paying retroactively or a month behind what they used last month. They don’t

see real-time energy use going to lights when there is maybe noVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
82

body occupying or, you know, maybe there is a piece of equipment

that is malfunctioning and the energy level shoots up. So those

types of things need to be put in everyday practice and then I think

having those things for the building operator will allow them to

most efficiently operate their building and decrease their cost.

Mr. MATHESON. I appreciate that.

Mr. Coad, am I pronouncing your name correctly?

Mr. COAD. Yes.

GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS

Mr. MATHESON. In your assessments report, you point out that

there is what you call a race to respond, a consumer demand for

green products. Do you think the capacity exists within the building standards industry to effectively address the need for new

standards for all of these green products and keep up what are undoubtedly going to be more and more products coming into this expanding marketplace?

Mr. COAD. Yes. The High-Performance Building Council at NIBS

in their first—well, in their organizational year, they had, like, 80

different organizations who wrote standards assemble together for

that year and they did an extensive study of all the standards that

were available and they are now working on filling all the holes

and they are working with Mr. Carnahan’s group to try to get that

whole thing organized. It is a massive undertaking but we have all

the information out there and we are finding out where the holes

are, and as soon as we find that out we are going to start trying

to get various standards-adopting organizations to start plugging

those holes. As I mentioned before, this is not—we make this thing

too complicated. It is not that complicated. And from an economics

perspective, and I am going to say something that nobody is going

to believe me: it costs less money to provide a more energy-efficient

product, it doesn’t cost more money. It costs less money because it

all relates to money and power. Power is how big something is and

energy is how long you run it, and if it is smaller you pay less for

it and you use less energy while you are doing it. That is an absolute fact. That is an engineering problem, and the man on the

street can’t solve it but the design engineers can solve it. You give

me any machine you want and if I work at it long enough, I can

always figure out how to make it smaller and use less energy. It

is just a matter of motivation. We have the technology. And if we

don’t do the efficiency first, then we will never be able to solve the

problem with alternate fuels. We want to adopt a slogan, efficiency

first. That is the first order of business.

Mr. MATHESON. Thanks, Mr. Coad.

Mr. EHLERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MATHESON. I am happy to yield, yes.

Mr. EHLERS. Just one quick comment on that. We saw what happened after the 1973 energy crisis. What I think really soured a lot

of the public on this since they didn’t understand it was all the

shysters who got in the market selling all sorts of products which

they promised would save tremendous amounts of energy. Most of

them were not worth anything at all. And so I just want to put in

a plug, and I know you are working on this but I will put in a plug

to have really good standards so the public doesn’t get fooled beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
83

cause they have no way of measuring energy. They have to be assured that when they buy something that it actually is going to

work and is going to help.

Mr. COAD. I agree with you 100 percent.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. I yield back.

Chairman BAIRD. Ms. Giffords.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought Mr.

Carnahan was on our subcommittee. You should join our subcommittee. It is a good one. Thank you for visiting.

Chairman BAIRD. We will get to Mr. Carnahan. We are not being

rude to Mr. Carnahan. We generally proceed in the order of arrival

but Mr. Carnahan is joining us as a guest today so he is last. He

bats cleanup for us today.

Ms. Giffords.

EFFICIENCY IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing

and for our panelists’ incredible discussion. My first question is for

Mr. Chalk. I am very interested in what DOE can do to help promote adoption of best practices in building design and also retrofits

throughout the Federal Government. I thought it was pretty astounding that 80 percent of the energy used by the Federal Government is used by the Department of Defense. I serve on the House

Armed Services Committee and I am particularly interested in how

we can help the military to adopt best practices in energy efficiency

and renewable energy and operations and installations. So can you

please tell me how the DOE is working to help promote building

efficiency within GSA and also the DOD? Is there anything happening within DOD that might also help inform research at the

DOE and what efforts are available for cross-pollination?

Mr. CHALK. We have a program within Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy called the Federal Energy Management Program,

which is responsible for overseeing energy across the Federal Government, help get agencies the tools they need to save energy, and

one of the best mechanisms we have for that are things called

ESPC contracts, which are energy savings performance contracts

where, you know, typically if you want to modernize your building

or make it more energy efficient, you have to have up-front appropriations to do that. What this ESPC mechanism allows is private

contractors to come in, they specialize in energy efficiency. They

will put all the up-front money to switch out the lights from incandescent to fluorescent or, you know, upgrade insulation, HVAC systems, chillers and so forth. They will put all the up-front capital

to modernize the building and then they get paid through the actual savings in the utility bill. So that is typically the primary

mechanism that the Department of Defense is using, and they are

doing a very good job at this. And actually if you look across all

federal agencies, the Department of Defense is one of the leaders

in terms of actual energy saved and in terms of putting somebody

in charge accountable for energy management. So they are very,

very good example. And so what our program does is, it gives people the tools to do that.

Ms. GIFFORDS. One of the specific problems we have, I come from

Tucson, Arizona, is the heat of the Southwest, and I know specifiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
84

cally, well, not just with our military installations but our other

government buildings as well, we have a real problem in keeping

our buildings cool during the hot weather. So I am curious about

the unique research challenges for the green building program. Is

it insulation? What are the real possibilities that we can develop

when you are talking about a climate that gets to be 115, 120 degrees?

Mr. CHALK. Well, the first thing to do is no air infiltration, and

so it is about the building envelope, how well you are insulating

it, making sure you don’t have thermal bridges and conductivity.

But then I think the breakthrough could be in new cooling technology and we are looking at several different approaches at the

Department of Energy because cooling technology has advanced

greatly. Heat pump technology and so forth is much more efficient

than it was even 10, 15 years ago, so if you have a heat pump that

is 15 years old, you can do a lot better today than that. But we can

go beyond that to new technology for cooling and I think that is an

area of emphasis going forward for our program, especially in the

commercial buildings area.

IMPLEMENTING DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

Ms. GIFFORDS. And finally, Mr. Chairman, for all the witnesses,

one of my great concerns that I have, and we sit through a lot of

these committee hearings, whether we talk to NREL or the highperformance green building consortiums and others and the work

that is being done is very impressive, but I think that we need to

move beyond pilot programs, pilot projects and demonstration

projects to actually put what is being done in little specific areas

out for the entire building industry. So if a couple people could

please comment on how we go from these little projects to really

implementing more national programs?

Mr. CHALK. I will comment just briefly. As we build these alliances in the commercial buildings area, we are building a database

so every building that has demonstrated will go into the database,

how it is used, what its energy use is, and we will take data on

those buildings so this would be education out there to other architects, other developers so they can see what has been demonstrated

at a much larger scale that goes beyond the research and development.

Dr. EHRHARDT-MARTINEZ. I would just like to add to that, I think

that it is really clear that, you know, the whole question of distribution of technology and the diffusion of technology again is very

much rooted in understanding human decision-making and, you

know, when and why people decide to adopt these technologies and

so again I think that the social and behavioral sciences need to

play an important part in that process.

Chairman BAIRD. I think Mr. Coad had a comment he wanted to

add.

Mr. COAD. I am the air conditioning guy. I can’t not answer that

question. The first thing you do when you are in Tucson and you

are building a building is that you don’t build a building the same

way you would build it if it were in San Francisco. You don’t build

a building out of all glass with an enormous cooling load. You build

a building so it has less of a cooling load. You use less glass and

85

you use better insulation and then your cooling system will be

smaller, it will cost you less money and it will use less energy. So

the engineering and the architecture is, I mean, that is where it

all begins in buildings. When you are building a new building, you

reduce the load just by configuring the building of the right materials and so forth and then you are going to reduce the cost and

the energy from then on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. GIFFORDS. And Mr. Chairman, just a comment. There was a

federal courthouse built in Phoenix a couple of years ago, a glass

building that is probably the most energy-inefficient building ever

constructed where the guards that sit down at the entrance in the

summer have fans blowing on them, in the winter have little space

heaters. I mean, it is a huge atrium that has been constructed. And

again, you know, it is a federal building, beautiful by design but

incredibly inefficient and certainly is going in the wrong direction.

Mr. COAD. I certainly agree with you. I am very familiar with the

building and you are right.

Chairman BAIRD. Those buildings tend to be water inefficient as

well, as some of them cool by spraying water into the air in a

desert. It makes an awful lot of sense. As you know, Ms. Giffords,

the Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,

Mr. Oberstar, has been a passionate advocate of green buildings for

the Federal Government and in fact the stimulus package had a

substantial element in that but it is only right that the Federal

Government lead the way and we need to find more and more opportunities. I thank you for the line of questioning.

Mr. Tonko, as many of you know, has a long history in energy

from his work in New York State. Mr. Tonko, thank you.

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As was indicated, I had

past experience most recently prior to this job as president and

CEO of NYSERDA, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, very much pronounced activities in energy efficiency and retrofitting R&D investments. So my question would

be following on Mr. Matheson where you talked about the successful retrofitting of programs through DOE. So Mr. Chalk, the next

question I would have of that is, are we adequately funded within

the building technologies program to be aggressive with the building infrastructure across this country? Are we at a level that is reasonable?

Mr. CHALK. Right now we have adequate funding, but I would

also add to that that building efficiency is one of Secretary Chu’s

top priorities, so I think you will see more and more a priority

placed on this, as everybody has said here, the significance of the

energy consumption, greenhouse gases and water use.

Mr. TONKO. So does that imply that we will just grow that program with the human infrastructure needed at DOE?

Mr. CHALK. I think across the Federal Government we will see

so much more emphasis on building efficiency: within the Department of Energy, within GSA, within EPA and so forth.

Mr. TONKO. I mentioned NYSERDA. The New York City office of

NYSERDA is a net-zero office, and based on the Energy Independence Act of 2007, we are targeting 2025, I believe, as aiming to proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
86

vide the net-zero outcome to a full-scale approach. Don’t we need

to be much more aggressive about that targeted year?

Mr. CHALK. I think that there are quotas associated with certain

years in the Act. Right now with our funding levels we are on track

by 2025 to meet that and what we talk about—so it is net zero

now. But we talk about is affordable, you know, widespread market

adoption so we are talking about when the commercial space about

having a payback for that within five years. That is still a challenge, affordability, the cost of the technologies and we are going

to get more elaborate building controls because we can get more efficiency. That is the emphasis of our R&D and we are still a ways

from achieving those goals for a five-year payback.

Mr. TONKO. In regard to the R&D, are we supportive enough

with the prototype stage? I know that we seem to be aggressive

about funding prototypes and then a number of nations pick up on

our R&D at that first stage and then we don’t follow through with

the deployment into the practical and commercial stages. Do we

need to be more aggressive in the follow-up of prototype investment?

Mr. CHALK. Yes, the Department actually does very little—pays

for very little demonstration. We pay for the R&D. We work with

the code organizations so that new construction or major retrofits

are more efficient and we actually don’t demonstrate a whole lot.

Our partners actually do the demonstrations.

Mr. TONKO. So maybe to other members of the panel, is there

any reason to believe that we need to be ratcheting up the investments made in the post-prototype stages?

Dr. MCQUADE. If I may, sir, I think there are two aspects to the

question, so the easy answer is yes because taking the large investment that DOE is making and turning those into deployable solutions is not happening fast enough.

Mr. TONKO. I think it is a real weakness in the energy culture

of this country, so what would you recommend we do and where

do we focus and target that?

Dr. MCQUADE. Yes, I think there is a second part of it, and I will

refer to Mr. Chalk’s comments on where research and development

is spent. In some sense, I will use the word ‘‘easy.’’ It is easy to

do a one-off building and make it energy efficient. Part of where

the research has to be focused is making solutions that are easily

deployable at scale so that every building is not unique. We need

tools that are deployable across the design space. We need simulation and modeling capabilities of buildings so that every building

doesn’t have to start from ground zero as a new project that no one

has ever approached before and I think there is a significant investment now and continuing investment at DOE in developing generic tools that can provide generic building operating systems and

capability so that it is not just, 11let me do a demonstration project

and deploy that,’’ it is, ‘‘let me do a demonstration project and deploy that to multiple classes and kinds of buildings going forward.’’

Mr. TONKO. And that that adjustment you believe can come

through DOE?

Dr. MCQUADE. Yes, I do.

Mr. TONKO. Okay. And if in fact our behavior here is driven by

economics and if the economics are played with by those who supVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
87

ply us a fossil-based economy, is there a way to deal with countereconomics where we provide the right incentives or the punitive

measures? It seems to me we can figure out an efficient environment, the cost of an energy-efficient environment. Should those

who want to be gluttonous in their usage pay beyond that reasonable amount?

Dr. MCQUADE. I think that—so the easy answer to the question

is that you need to recognize the energy cost in the solutions you

make, and that today the reasons some of the economics don’t play

out over the long-term—we talked before about the need to get that

sort of last 20 or 30 percent of building efficiency. Right now those

come from solutions that are economically unviable, and through a

whole series of mechanisms to increase energy costs or increase,

you know, recognize carbon costs, you can change that economics.

I start from a more basic assumption that says the way to change

those economics long-term is to invest in the technology that is

going to change that. That is a combination of public and private

partnership investment. Reducing the cost of those technologies is

the one constant that allows us to make more efficient buildings in

the future and change that economic situation.

Mr. TONKO. What about aggressive energy code enforcement? I

mean, how are we letting buildings as that described by my colleague a minute ago in the State of Arizona——

Chairman BAIRD. We are a bit over time. I want to make sure

I recognize Mr. Carnahan. We will get back to you, I hope.

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all the

panel for weighing in on this. I really think that this is an exciting

time for this issue and a lot of things have aligned to get some big

things done we haven’t been able to in the past. This issue has

been around for a long time, as Mr. Ehlers mentioned earlier, but

I think working with the private sector, the government has a key

role in setting standards, creating incentives to really motivate consumers to grow the market but, also even to set an example in

terms of our federal building infrastructure, and just a couple of

comments. I know that Mr. Chalk mentioned this but one of the

unique things that we have heard mentioned is how we can build

into whether it is residential or commercial mortgages these kind

of incentives that take into account cost savings and operational

cost of the building. Because right now we are missing some of

those things and that will be an incentive for buyers that certainly

want to buy those kind of buildings that are more efficient but also

to incentivize that from the building and the lending perspective.

So that is just one good example.

HIGH-PERFORMANCE BUILDING STANDARDS

A couple of questions I wanted to throw out here to the panel.

There is certainly a need to define high-performance building

standards which potentially could be above and beyond existing

building codes, and if there was adequate funding, what would

these sort of enhanced high-performance building models look like

in terms of getting them out there for use among the public and

in the building sector? Dr. Coad.

Mr. COAD. I sound like a broken record but it is efficiency first.

A high-performance building must be a super-energy-efficient

88

building. That is the primary focus. The next thing it has to be,

and this is why it is high-performance, it has to perform just as

well as far as satisfying the needs of the people that occupy the

building and the needs for their comfort and their productivity. So

that is really where we are heading with high-performance buildings and hopefully we are going to get there, and to address the

other question, I think the private sector has to move the building

technology forward based on these standards for high-performance

buildings.

Dr. EHRHARDT-MARTINEZ. Could I add to that? I would also

argue that we really need to include in standards some kind of provision that provides feedback to people with regard to their energy

consumption because the point that was made earlier about the

fact that people—I mean, people can’t manage what they don’t see,

and you know, you are trying to manage your energy based on a

bill that you get after the fact and the fact that you don’t really

see how the energy is being consumed in your home. You know,

people are left really powerless, in a lot of ways, to change their

behavior in ways that matter because they don’t really see the effects of the changes that they make. And there is already research

evidence that strongly suggests that just by providing these feedback mechanisms to people in their homes, that simple step empowers people to actually take on the challenge of changing their

own behaviors without any other kinds of incentives, without any

other kinds of—whether economic or non-economic types of incentives. So I think that that really has to be an important part of the

equation.

LIFE CYCLE ENERGY PRICING

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. And I am going to jump to one more

question as my time is running out. One of the problems we have

also seen is the separation of the acquisition and operational aspects of buildings and it is really a dichotomy that has been difficult to bridge but in terms of taking into account the full life cycle

cost of buildings, can you all address that issue?

Dr. MCQUADE. If I may, just a couple of statistics. First of all,

most modern commercial buildings today, more than 80 percent of

the energy and carbon associated with those buildings are in operation. They are not first costs on the building. We think there is

a very important role that is needed in establishing labeling mechanisms. I am talking about commercial buildings now as opposed

to residential buildings, sort of uniform labeling mechanisms that

allow people to know how buildings operate, not just as designed

but over the life of those buildings, so whether those are periodic

auditing programs that take into account real performance on

buildings, people who are buying space in new buildings need to

know how those buildings are functioning not as they were designed 10 years ago but as they function today and so we think

there is a very strong role for setting those kind of labeling standards.

In terms of regulating performance, I offer you one statistic. In

the United States over 100 years, we have accepted certain codes

and capabilities that make our buildings safe, sprinkling systems,

fire detection systems. Estimates are that those add about four perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
89

cent total to the cost of buildings over what we have developed over

time. The numbers we are talking about here for making buildings

70, 80 percent efficient likely add numbers of eight to ten percent.

So it is a comparable scale to achieve a national strategy of reducing energy comparable to what we accept as a cost that our buildings should bear in the marketplace over time. So we are talking

about numbers that are appropriate and conceivable in the kind of

challenges and tradeoffs we have already made for something as

important as the energy security of this country.

Chairman BAIRD. An outstanding line of questioning, and I think

the issue there is also the net cost at the end of the day, and I appreciate Mr. Carnahan’s reference to life cycle costs. I have been

told that, for example, LEED standards are all about the energy

efficiency of the building as an envelope but they don’t look at the

net life cycle cost of the materials that go into the building so

hence wood, which is a much more energy-efficient product to create than concrete or steel generally, is not counted as extra credit

and indeed may not be counted as a structural material at all in

LEED, and certainly as someone from timber country, they believe,

and I think with justification, that life net total life cycle costs

ought to be factored in.

Mr. Carnahan also mentioned the issue of standards and that

leads to a question I want to ask in deference to my friend and colleague, Mr. Wu, who heads the Subcommittee with jurisdiction

over NIST. I wonder if any of you have had interaction with NIST

as we look at standards and if we were to look towards developing

a standard metric for how we evaluate codes or measure building

technology and efficiency, what role does NIST have or should

NIST have in concert perhaps with DOE? And I open that to the

panel.

Mr. CHALK. Well, first I ought to speak on that. The relationship

with DOE and NIST is very good. In fact, DOE funds NIST with

about $1 million a year out of the DOE budget, and they help us

do the appliance test procedures. They help us an awful lot on indoor air quality and ventilation and helping setting standards and

best practices in that area, and in fact there is an overall interagency group that meets under OSTP that NIST and DOE co-chair

and they meet quarterly, so we are at DOE working very closely

with NIST on all of these issues and especially in our new Commercial Buildings Initiative.

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Coad.

Mr. COAD. Mr. Chairman, NIST is represented on the High-Performance Building Council as is DOE.

Chairman BAIRD. So they work together with you?

Mr. COAD. Right. They are all part of the council.

Chairman BAIRD. Is that an effective partnership in your judgment? Are there things that NIST ought——

Mr. COAD. Very effective, yes.

Chairman BAIRD. So that has been working for you?

Mr. COAD. Yes.

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Cicio, did you have any comment on

NIST’s role with your efforts?

Mr. CICIO. No, sir.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. McQuade, did you have a comment on it?

90

Dr. MCQUADE. No comment.

MEANS OF INFORMING CONSUMERS

Chairman BAIRD. What do you think might be some of the impact of—you know, when we buy cereal, it says you have got vitamin A or D or whatever in it. When you buy a house, you almost,

you know—Mr. Inglis and I were talking. One would think that as

informed consumers one would ask what is the cost of the heat of

this house or the air conditioning of this house if you are in Arizona. But to my knowledge there is no mandatory reporting of the

net energy usage of homes or industrial buildings, again, recognizing the caveats about the user function. What would be the impact of informing people as part of the home purchase—you know,

you fill out 100 damn documents—pardon me—darn documents,

you know, you are filling these things out, you are signing them

and you don’t know what they are. But something that says look,

pal, you are going to spend $400 a month over and above your

mortgage cost just to heat or cool this place. What are the—would

there be merit to that, to having to do that at point of purchase?

Mr. Coad.

Mr. COAD. In commercial buildings, there is what we call commissioning and retro-commissioning to where you go in and you do

like an audit each year on how the building is performing, and one

of the things you check is the energy consumption. It would be

very, very, very easy to require that a building be retro-commissioned before a person buys it. I would see nothing wrong with that

at all. And it would seem like with leadership from the Congress

or the States or somebody, these would be pretty simple instruments to implement for the sale of a home.

Chairman BAIRD. Well, when you look at how many homes are

funded either through FHA or VHA, Freddie, Fannie, et cetera, it

ought to be fairly easy to require something like that and then people could see. I think it makes an awful lot of sense.

Mr. COAD. And all the records are available through the utility

companies now instantaneously.

Mr. CHALK. The Department has developed a scale, and I hesitate to hold it up because it is too small, but we have a scale from

zero to 100 as part of our Builders Challenge, which is getting

builders to build homes 30 percent more efficient. So they would

score a 70 on that. As you go to zero, you would go towards netzero-energy homes. So we have developed such a scale and it is not

mandatory, of course, but some tool like this would definitely inform consumers and make that——

Chairman BAIRD. I think that is really good for new buildings.

I am not smart enough to know the answer but my guess is 90 percent of home sales at least are existing structures, and so my hope

would be that when you shop buildings, that homeowners would

say—back to Mr. Inglis’s point, do you make the investment or not?

If homeowners had reliable, ready information about the energy efficiency of a home, it would be part of their comparison shopping,

and if it were mandatory that that be given to people, now my investment pays—otherwise it rolls off the tongue, well, I have got

low E double-pane windows and a new furnace and blah, blah,

blah. That is real money on top of your mortgage expense, and the

91

one house now, its monthly payment is much higher than the other

house because the other house has made the investment, that is

valuable with existing structures.

Mr. CHALK. Right now it is voluntary. We have a Home Performance with Energy Star, DOE and EPA, where people can go in and

do the measurement and then tell you what efficiency measures to

take care of, but it is a voluntary program. It is not mandatory.

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Cicio.

Mr. CICIO. Mr. Chairman, I think you are absolutely on point.

The combination of knowledge and then transparency empowers

people to know the economics of choices, and just referencing the

industrial sector, before we invest in a new electric motor, for example, we will know how many BTUs per kilowatt, we are going

to know how energy efficient. It is part of the informed decision.

And I think the residential sector needs that same informed knowledge.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. Ehrhardt-Martinez.

Dr. EHRHARDT-MARTINEZ. Yeah, I would have to agree. I mean,

there is a lot of evidence to suggest that labeling programs can be

really effective and I think that integrating that kind of program

in terms of, you know, whether it occurs you know, related to the

inspection of a home or prior to that when the home is up for sale,

I think that could be a really effective way of empowering, you

know, home buyers to make wiser choices, and that is part of, I

think, you know, an effort associated with the field of behavioral

economics in terms of what they call choice architecture which can

go a long way to helping people make smarter energy choices.

Chairman BAIRD. My guess would be it would have to—as a behavioral scientist and somebody that has bought some homes, my

guess would be it needs to be listed on the MLS.

Dr. EHRHARDT-MARTINEZ. That would be the preference.

Chairman BAIRD. So cost of home, cost of heat, you know, on the

transportation side. I think we ought to also frankly put in information about the net cost of getting to and from work because

when people move way out to the ’burbs thinking they are saving

an awful lot of money on their home and then have an hour-anda-half commute in, that is a pretty false economy.

Dr. EHRHARDT-MARTINEZ. Right, and there are other—I mean,

obviously with that particular example there are non-energy benefits associated with, you know, living closer as well in terms of time

savings and whatnot.

Chairman BAIRD. But we don’t quantify that in a way that is

meaningful to purchasers.

Dr. EHRHARDT-MARTINEZ. Exactly.

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Inglis.

ENCOURAGING EFFICIENCY AT THE VARIOUS LEVELS OF

GOVERNMENT

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We were just talking

about the first house that my wife and I bought. We were warned

in advance that it had resistant baseboard heaters but we didn’t

really pay attention to that until that first bill came, and then we

were shocked what January in South Carolina does when you have

got resistant heaters on baseboard. But also I went and watched

92

the meter go around and that gave me an even quicker feedback

loop about, you know, the thing looked like it was about to catch

on fire as it spun. So the question I think for us in a lot of these

kinds of initiative is, who is going—who does what? My view is

that balancing the budget is a lot about answering that question

is who does what. If you get it at the right level of government,

then you get—you can actually go toward balancing the budget.

And in this case, the question is, these great ideas we are talking

about here that really do sound pretty exciting to me, are they best

done at the federal level or are they best done through model codes

that then are adopted by, say, Greenville and Spartanburg County,

South Carolina, and enforced at Greenville and Spartanburg level?

What do you all think about that?

Mr. CHALK. Well, the Department, I think, one of the assets it

has is the R&D, the national laboratory, so I think the proper federal role is to sponsor a lot of the R&D and we are seeing that

R&D, the fruits of that labor creep into building codes, and to address the earlier comments, through the Recovery Act, $3.1 billion

was available to states for the State Energy Program, but to receive that money, governors of the states had to pledge to the Secretary that they would adopt the 2007 commercial code and the

2006 residential code in order to receive that money. So even

though the standards are voluntary, I think we are seeing mechanisms to incentivize folks who are adopting those. And through a

lot of our R&D, the successes there actually creep into the code and

then hit the local level, so I think you are seeing a lot of that. I

think that has been pretty effective working with the code organizations.

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Coad, do you want to address that?

Mr. COAD. The voluntary consensus standards are pretty powerful devices and virtually all the states that have a building code

have picked up ASHRAE standard 90 for commercial buildings and

they also have a standard for residential buildings that is being

promulgated. I think my personal feeling is that the proper role of

the Federal Government is in leadership and education and

incentivizing the states to do these things rather than having other

departments of the Federal Government getting involved in something that really are local issues. But the consensus standards are

out there and they are getting better all the time. And now we are

starting to have other kind of activities like doing so much better

than the standard because the standards aren’t really as far as you

can go and we can do better than the standards, so that is a lot

of incentive in that direction. So they are being pretty effective on

that but it is just that we are not—we haven’t gotten real serious

about it throughout the country. We need better leadership, I

think, or more leadership to realize that this is a big problem.

Mr. CICIO. The local politics are often driven by builders whose

primary—I don’t want to over-generalize—is very cost conscious

and have a history, I should say, of resisting any costs including

energy efficiency costs. So while philosophically it sounds great to

keep those decisions at the local level, maybe possibly the only way

you really are going to get this done is through a federal mandate.

Dr. EHRHARDT-MARTINEZ. I would have to agree with that sentiment, although also provide the possibility of having a Federal

93

Government standard but also having a Federal Government program that would provide incentives to states and perhaps localities

to, you know, exceed those standards so to provide other means of

encouraging that kind of behavior at the local and State level.

Dr. MCQUADE. I would just add maybe slightly off the subject

that in addition to the leadership role that we talked about before,

there is a leadership role in the set of buildings that are managed

by the government, the GSA portfolio and the DOD portfolio, and

conversation about local versus national standards, being out in

front with energy-efficient performance in federal buildings I think

is a leadership role that the government has to take as a way to

demonstrate the seriousness of the issue to people.

Mr. INGLIS. Very helpful. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BAIRD. We have about six more minutes left so I am

going to ask our colleagues be brief. Mr. Tonko has a question and

then Mr. Carnahan.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I couldn’t agree more

with the sentiments about having a federal focus on a comprehensive energy plan. If we are going to pick and choose here, we will

never accomplish the numbers we need. I would hope that at the

local level we would have the information squad that would allow

people to understand just what their actions mean and the actions

they can take.

The only line of questioning I wanted to pursue that I didn’t

have time for earlier was on this whole buildings agenda. How is

it that the Federal Government occupies a building that is energy

inefficient? Was that building built by the Federal Government or

is it just rented space?

Mr. COAD. Which building?

Mr. TONKO. The one in Arizona that my colleague was mentioning.

Mr. COAD. That was built by the Federal Government.

Mr. TONKO. So how is it that we don’t have the coordination at

a federal level to even do our own infrastructure energy efficientwise?

Mr. COAD. I can’t answer that.

Mr. TONKO. Who can?

Mr. CHALK. Right now through our Federal Energy Management

Program, there is a conscious effort across the Federal Government

to reduce water use, and increase energy efficiency by 30 percent

by 2015.

Mr. TONKO. How old is the building that my colleague cited?

Mr. COAD. It is a reasonably new building.

Mr. TONKO. So how is it in the midst of an energy crisis we allowed a building like that to be built?

Mr. COAD. I would ask that question to——

Mr. TONKO. So we can start right at home with our own buildings and certainly if we are providing federal funds for any building construction, private sector and public, shouldn’t we have an

energy code maintenance, a requirement, and can we put in some

sort of outside the public realm where there is no public dollars,

can we put some sort of incentive in that addresses your mortgage

or whatever just for being energy efficient? It seems as though

there are aggressive actions that can be taken and there are comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
94

missions of negligence in recent past history that need to be addressed by federal policy.

Mr. CHALK. I would say the federal buildings that would go up

now would have to comply with the codes, and the codes just recently have become much more energy efficient than they were,

say, 10 years ago. So I think progress is being made when new federal buildings are being built.

Mr. TONKO. Because of our gross neglect, I think we need to get

very aggressive about energy efficiency, see it as our fuel of choice,

give it our highest priority and move forward with a plan that finally addresses the demand side of the equation which has long

been overdue.

Mr. COAD. Sir, I agree with you 100 percent.

Chairman BAIRD. Well said, Mr. Tonko.

Mr. Carnahan, no additional comments?

CLOSING

I think the take-home from this needs to be, many industries

have made a real effort in terms of marketing basic numbers. I

don’t think if you ask the average American or Member of Congress, for that matter, what percentage of our energy consumption

goes to the uses that we have talked about today. Most of us would

probably be well off that mark, and if we are off that mark, then

we are going to be off the mark in terms of targeting our interventions. And we have learned today the targeted interventions can be

an—not can be, must be an essential part of solving our nation’s

energy independence, global warming, overheating and ocean acidification and our economic woes because the money that is saved is

money you get to keep and so I applaud our witnesses for a very

stimulating and most informative discussion. I wish every American could have tuned into this and all of our colleagues as well.

I thank my colleagues and friends on the panel. Mr. Carnahan

wanted a final remark and I recognize Mr. Carnahan.

Mr. CARNAHAN. Just one brief comment. I want to thank Chairman Baird for his leadership on this issue, and it has been one of

my personal missions to be sure that when somebody gets up and

talks about energy policy in this country, they don’t leave out highperformance buildings because I have had three-fourths of the people I see stand up and talk about our energy policy and what we

need to do as a country don’t even mention it. So we have to be

sure this is involved in this national conversation and I thank all

the panel for what you are doing to make that happen. Thank you.

Chairman BAIRD. Excellent point, Mr. Carnahan, and I applaud

your leadership. We talk about carbon sequestration and electronic

vehicles and fusion energy, et cetera, and making our businesses

and homes more efficient may be a whole lot more efficient and affordable in the shorter-term, and I applaud your leadership.

With that, the hearing stands adjourned. I thank our panelists

and witnesses, excellent testimony, and my colleagues. I have to always say the record will remain open for two weeks for additional

statements from the Members and for answers to any follow-up

questions the Subcommittee may ask of the witnesses. The witnesses are excused. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(95)

Appendix:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

96

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Steven Chalk, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

Questions submitted by Chairman Brian Baird

Q1. During the question and answer period of the hearing you said that DOE and

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have a very good working relationship. Describe how DOE works with NIST on building code development. What specifically does DOE fund NIST to do? You also mentioned that

you work with NIST on the new Commercial Buildings Initiative, what are you

working with them on?

A1. The Department of Energy (DOE) collaborates with the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) in several ways. For more than 12 years, DOE

and NIST have co-chaired a series of buildings-related R&D subcommittees on the

National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology. This co-chair

collaboration includes development of R&D agendas, research, and other activities.

NIST has also provided technical expertise in support of International Energy Agency work on building commissioning, and has made significant contributions in evaluating the usefulness of building commissioning. In addition, in accordance with section 324 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), since the mid-1970’s

DOE has worked closely with NIST on the development and update of test procedures for consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment

under the Energy Conservation Standards Program.

Q2. In your testimony you state that DOE is ‘‘actively engaged in the ASHRAE

standards process by providing technical assistance to support the upgrade of

standard 90.1.’’ Please describe how you work with these voluntary consensus

groups and what kind’s research and development activities you are involved in

that helps inform the process?

A2. The Department staff participates as a voting member on the Standing Standards Project Committee 90.1, recommends amendments to standard 90.1, and seeks

adoption of technologically feasible, economically justified energy efficiency measures, as required by section 307(a) of the Energy Conservation and Production Act

(EPCA). DOE shares its research and demonstration results from technology areas

and high-performance building alliances, such as information from the Advanced

Energy Design Guides. The design guides are jointly produced by DOE; the American Institute of Architects; the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers; the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America;

and the U.S. Green Building Council.

DOE also performs technical analysis and building energy modeling which it

shares with the Standing Standards Project Committee 90.1 in its deliberations.

This analysis and modeling has included development of new regression equations

for use in setting envelope requirements, identification of new cost information, development of hourly load profiles for building prototypes, technical analysis of lighting issues dealing with lighting power densities, whole building simulation support

necessary to supply the Envelope and Mechanical subcommittees with the results

they need to develop changes, and modification of the requirements in the energy

cost budget chapter and appendices to capture addenda such as new distribution

transformer requirements and new variable speed chiller efficiencies. The Department’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory personnel chair the Lighting Subcommittee, and participate on several other subcommittees as members or consultants.

Q3. There are many specific R&D technologies and models identified in the National

Science and Technology Council report on net-zero buildings issued last year.

How does DOE prioritize what areas of research to pursue?

A3. The prioritization of technology topics for funding occurs at multiple organizational levels, and is driven by public policy goals established through authorizing

legislation, and national policy documents and plans. For the Building Technologies

Program (BTP), the research agenda is designed to achieve the technical and economic basis for marketable net-zero energy performance in residential construction

by 2020, and in commercial construction by 2025.

Additional goals for implementation in the commercial market were established

by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). These goals include

all new construction to be net-zero energy by 2030, 50 percent of commercial buildVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:08 Nov 11, 2009 Jkt 048736 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\042809\48736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
97

ing stock to be net-zero by 2040, and 100 percent of commercial building stock to

be net-zero by 2050. At this time there are no time-specific goals for the retrofit of

existing housing stock analogous to the EISA goals for commercial buildings retrofits.

The technical research goals of developing net-zero energy buildings take into account costs to ensure broad applicability of research results to the market. For example, residential net-zero performance should have a net-zero cash flow on an annual basis to the homeowner, based on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage and benchmark energy costs. Also, the BTP is working toward a five to seven year payback

on the incremental cost of achieving net-zero energy performance in commercial

buildings. The BTP conducts an annual multi-year planning process to update its

research agenda based on a number of factors, including:

• Current and projected funding levels;

• Technical progress on funded work, informed by peer review and StageGate

reviews;

• Technology roadmaps established and updated with stakeholders;

• Technology pathways (including risk assessment, barriers to development and

adoption) developed analytically;

• External technology developments;

• Projected gaps in technical performance and/or cost of performance for wholebuilding systems-engineered net-zero energy performance;

• Market trends and analyses;

• Stakeholder input;

• Contingency plans for increased/decreased resources (e.g., having a developed

list of unaddressed opportunities)

• Changes in Congressional authorizations, Administration policies and/or priorities (including OMB budget guidance, OSTP/NSTC guidance).

Each technology area (e.g., residential integration; commercial integration; solid

state lighting; Heating, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning; Solar Heating and Cooling; thermal envelope and windows; and analysis tools) also develops an individual

multi-year plan. These individual plans are then integrated in an annual workshop

to ensure a coordinated set of activities are being pursued that can deliver on the

long-term goals of the program. The integrated plan is published on the Internet

and can be found at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/mypp.html. The multiyear plan, along with other analyses, drives the development of annual operating

plans to execute appropriated budgets, and to drive budget proposals within the Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and at the Departmental level as well.

Q4. The Department of Energy as well as other agencies fund several different buildings consortiums. For example there is a High-Performance Green Building Consortium, a High-Performance Building Council and a Commercial Building Energy Alliance. How are these partnerships coordinated? How does DOE choose

which to participate in?

A4. As required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), the

Department formally recognized 11 high-performance green building consortia

through a Federal Register Notice process, and competitively selected a single supporting consortium with which to consult in the implementation of the High-Performance Green Commercial Building Initiative (CBI). The CBI is designed to

achieve net-zero energy performance in all commercial buildings by 2030 and in the

entire commercial building stock by 2050. The formally recognized consortia have

their contact information listed on the DOE web site and act as informal resources

for the CBI. The supporting consortium, consisting of 150 organizations and stakeholders led by the National Association of State Energy Officials, is funded to coordinate input on CBI technical and planning topics, and to assist in communication

and outreach with industry stakeholders, manufacturers and NGOs, among other

activities.

The Department, through the CBI, engages the commercial buildings marketplace

through Commercial Building Energy Alliances (Retail, Commercial Real Estate,

Health Care, and two others in the planning stages) to encourage sharing of best

practices, engage with manufacturers to identify common technology cost and performance needs, and to exchange experiences with new technologies, retrofit and

new construction practices. In addition, research technical assistance is being provided to 23 major building portfolio owners and operators who commit to retrofitting

a building at 30 percent better than the current ASHRAE 90.1 model energy code,

98

and to design, build and operate a new building at 50 percent better than code. Targeted building technology, systems, tools and practices research needed to contribute

to the long-term goals established by EISA, is informed by these activities.

The High-Performance Building Council was an ad hoc structure formed by the

National Institute of Building Standards (NIBS) to produce a report required by

Section 914 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The report was completed and delivered to Congress; it focused primarily on the needs for improved voluntary consensus standards for high-performance buildings. The Department provided funding

to support this effort. The Department continues to work with the International

Code Council and the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers to develop the next generation of model energy codes.

Q5. In your written testimony you talk about the work of the Residential Integration

program, and testing the results on a community-scale. Have you been able to

demonstrate community-scale systems, and if so, where? If not, are discussions

underway to set up demonstrations of this size? How do you decide which technologies to demonstrate?

A5. The Department’s Building America Program Stage-Gates is working to include: development of individual technologies and practices for integration into

whole-house solutions; proof of performance in prototype research homes; and implementation in production housing construction practice, i.e., at the community scale.

The research focuses on solutions for each of the five general climate zones in the

U.S.: cold, hot-dry, hot-humid, mixed humid, and marine. The combination of technologies to be evaluated in a prototype home are selected using the Building Optimization model, which compares combinations of options based on performance and

cost characteristics, with results representing the best cost-optimized potential solutions sets. It should be noted that solution sets include systems engineering improvements, such as advanced quality controls protocols, and advanced construction

practices such as value engineered framing developed through research projects

with builders.

Once a prototype house is built per the initial design, the team tests the prototype’s systems for quality and energy use and makes necessary changes to the design to increase efficiency and cost effectiveness. The design must be tested and retested for total performance before it is ready for use in production or communityscale housing. Community-scale Stage-Gate criteria include a requirement that a

minimum of 10 homes be constructed in at least five geographically dispersed locations within a climate zone. Usually the builder will construct the whole development using these designs. These developments typically have 150 to 300 homes.

While the builders constructing these homes receive technical support, the program

provides no funds for brick and mortar. Since the inception of the program, over

41,500 highly efficient research homes have been built. The locations and the number of homes at each location can be found on the Building America web site at

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/building¥america/cfm/

project¥locations.cfm

Questions submitted by Representative Lynn C. Woolsey

Q1. DOE’s Building Technologies Program has adopted a goal of developing net-zero

energy buildings by 2025. In December 2007, the National Renewable Energy

Lab (NREL) issued ‘‘Assessment of the Technical Potential for Achieving NetZero Energy Buildings in the Commercial Sector,’’ a report to assess whether

zero-energy buildings are achievable (attached). The study looks at how low

building energy consumption can practically go. Our understanding is that this

report was good, but because of the limitations in certain software, such as

EnergyPlus, some significant energy saving options, were not able to be considered. Two questions:

Q1a. Does NREL/DOE have any updates to the 2007 study that refine and/or expand the study’s conclusions?

A1a. Neither the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) nor the Department have updated the ‘‘Assessment of the Technical Potential for Achieving NetZero Energy Buildings in the Commercial Sector’’ study. However, in April 2009,

NREL issued a companion study, ‘‘Assessment of the Energy Impacts of Outside Air

in the Commercial Sector,’’ that expanded the original analysis to address relatively

narrow questions surrounding the energy impacts of ventilation air needed for

healthy indoor environments.

99

Q1b. Is NREL planning to update the study at anytime in the near future to take

into account innovations in building technologies, new tools to evaluate building performance, and other such developments?

A1b. The ‘‘Assessment of the Technical Potential for Achieving Net-Zero Energy

Buildings in the Commercial Sector’’ study uses data from the Energy Information

Administration’s (EIA) 2003 CBECS and ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–

2004 to model the commercial buildings sector. Once EIA releases its 2007 CBECS

data and ASHRAE releases 90.1–2010, the Department will re-examine the need to

update the study. The various software tools used in the study are steadily being

improved to allow simulation of more technology options as their associated detailed

characteristics become available for incorporation into the models. The Department

is investing in the development of detailed performance characteristics of new and

emerging technologies on a continuous basis.

Q2. How can we accelerate the development of software and other computational

kinds of technologies to accelerate the design and construction of ‘‘green’’ buildings? Are there opportunities for cooperation with commercial software companies to improve the state-of-the-art in energy analysis? Is this an area where

public-private partnerships can yield better results for everyone?

A2. While software and other computational technologies are essential tools in constructing high-performance buildings, the decisions designers make are only as good

as the available data. In order to achieve its goal of market-ready net-zero energy

buildings by 2025, DOE is actively seeking input data and accurate costs of different

design options which only the private sector can provide.

DOE currently collaborates with four major private sector companies that create

Building Information Modeling (BIM) systems (AutoDesk: AutoCAD, REVIT; Bentley: Microstation, Hevacomp, TAS; Graphisoft: ArchiCAD; and Google: SketchUp) to

make energy simulations using DOE’s tool, EnergyPlus, more accessible. This year,

DOE began a series of educational workshops with Google and Bentley to explain

how EnergyPlus can be used within their applications and how designs are validated in the real world.

In addition, university students have been creating new modules for EnergyPlus

as part of graduate studies (without funding from DOE). As a result, in 2008 DOE

brought more than 20 university professors together to discuss enhancing simulation training in universities. One way that DOE is embarking on such collaboration—in training and in extending the capabilities of EnergyPlus—is through the

Higher Education Energy Alliance (HEEA). HEEA is one of five Commercial Building Energy Alliances that DOE is forming as part of its Net-Zero Energy Commercial Building Initiative (CBI), which aims to create market-ready net-zero energy

buildings by 2025.

DOE believes such collaborations are essential to the successful and speedy development of energy simulation software required to design, build and operate highperformance green buildings. DOE will continue these highly productive partnerships and seek to expand its partnerships going forward.

100

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Karen Ehrhardt–Martinez, Research Associate, American Council for

an Energy–Efficient Economy (ACEEE)

Questions submitted by Chairman Brian Baird

Q1. In your testimony you note that DOE building technology initiatives would benefit from a more systemic and widespread incorporation of social and behavioral

insights. Within DOE, where and how should this information be incorporated?

Do you think social and behavioral science should be supported by various initiatives or do you think there needs to be a coordinated social science program

within EERE?

A1. A more systematic and widespread incorporation of social and behavioral insights within the building technology initiatives at DOE holds the promise of both

deeper and faster energy savings. This effort should consist of a coordinated social

science program that integrates social and behavioral insights throughout all of

DOE’s initiatives and that creates a people-centered approach to energy savings.

To date, DOE has been primarily focused on the development and dissemination

of more energy-efficient technologies without giving sufficient attention to:

• the acceptability of those technologies,

• consumer choices and issues of technology adoption, or

• the ways in which people maintain or use new technologies and the energy

implications of those choices, habits and lifestyles.

A people-centered approach would recognize that what people choose to do with

any given technology or system of technologies is just as important as the characteristics of the technology itself in determining the amount of energy will be consumed

or saved. As Internet guru, Clay Shirky stated ‘‘A revolution doesn’t happen when

society adopts new tools, it happens when society adopts new behaviors.’’

The Social Science initiative would ideally be housed within the Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy Offices and would require the employment of sufficient senior level social scientists so as to provide expertise and training to other DOE staff

and staff at the National Labs as well as to help build DOE’s internal capacity in

this area.

101

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by J. Michael McQuade, Senior Vice President, Science and Technology,

United Technologies Corporation

Questions submitted by Chairman Brian Baird

Q1. You pointed out that metrics need to be developed to achieve better-performing

buildings through systems integration. What role do you think the Federal Government should play in the development of metrics or tools to identify and quantify critical interactions between systems?

A1. As noted in my testimony, there is a vigorous role for government-sponsored research into the methodology and tools needed to model, simulate and

computationally control complex, integrated buildings. These tools, using leading

edge and yet to be developed computer science, mathematics and physics-based modeling will allow us to understand how subsystems interact within a building and

how buildings interact with their environment. These topics are major enablers to

allow us to create the highly efficient buildings we discussed at the hearing.

Once these new buildings exist or existing buildings are retrofitted with upgraded

capability, we believe there is a necessary role government should play in the establishment and deployment of ‘‘whole building’’ energy performance ratings and standards that incorporate these advancements. In addition, we believe these performance statistics should be publicly reported on a regular basis. Standards for energyefficient components can be useful but standards for whole building energy performance are key to realizing energy-efficient buildings. The analogy here is that while

we recognize the role engines play in automobile efficiency, we measure and apply

mile-per-gallon standards to automobiles, not to their components, thus taking into

account other technologies such as aerodynamic design, energy harvesting or adaptive engine control.

Q2. In your testimony, you note the importance of computational research and development in the design, optimization, and control of energy use in buildings. Are

the current activities in these areas at DOE and NIST sufficient? Is there any

way they can be improved? And within the Department of Energy, could the

buildings program in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

make better use of the significant computational capabilities stewarded by the

Office of Science?

A2. We do believe that the current programs at NIST and DOE have been helpful

but that a full-fledged program of basic building energy sciences and tools development is needed beyond what these agencies have been charged with in the past. In

particular, existing programs do not focus on the underlying thermal physics and

dynamics of complex, interconnected systems and they do not have, as a goal, the

creation of tools that can be applied by the building industry through the entire

cycle from design to build to continuous operation.

We believe that a focused program should cover three areas. These areas are detailed in my written testimony. In summary they include:

• Systems Engineering and Design Methodologies, including rigorous and

scalable process and tool environment for building project requirements management & system architecture exploration

• Optimization and Control of Multi-scale Dynamics, including analytical

techniques for system decomposition, analysis and uncertainty propagation in

heterogeneous, networked, multi-scale building systems and nonlinear dynamical systems theory tools to exploit natural dynamics

• Robust Control and Decision Support Algorithms, including control and

commissioning systems and automated fault detection and diagnostic (FDD)

capabilities using building automation systems

This kind of systems-level research does not yet exist within EERE. A vigorous

program managed either by EERE or the newly forming ARPA–E would certainly

make use of the computational tools and capabilities that exist within the DOE’s

Office of Science and especially its high-performance computing initiative.

The United States needs a comprehensive energy strategy to ensure we deliver

to future generations a secure and livable world. Energy efficiency, doing more with

less, must be at the heart of such a strategy, and reduction in energy consumption

in our buildings can and must be a priority element. I applaud the work of the Committee in focusing on this issue and thank you again for the chance to testify on

102

how we might move a national agenda forward. Please feel free to contact me if I

may be of future assistance on this important topic.

Æ