On June 29, 2006, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 5427 , the Energy and Water Appropriations bill for FY2007 ( S.Rept. 109-274 ). This bill includes funding for the DOE Energy Efficiency Program, which is conducted by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). Compared with House-passed funding for FY2007, the Senate Committee approved an increase of $66.1 million (5%) for all EERE programs. Table 3 shows other differences, most notably increases for Buildings and Clean Cities programs; and decreases for Weatherization, Fuel Cells, FEMP, Program Management, and Industry programs. Compared with FY2006 funding, the Committee recommends an increase of $211.7 million (18%) for EERE R&D and deployment programs. This reflects support for the Advanced Energy Initiative, including an increase for the Hydrogen program ($34.2 million). The main cuts include the Weatherization program (-$42.6 million), Industrial programs (-$9.3 million), and Program Management (-$9.9 million). Regarding earmarks, both the House ($26.1 million) and Senate ($15.8 million) figures are much lower than the $76.4 million enacted for FY2006. For the Environmental Protection Agency's Climate Protection (energy efficiency) Programs ( H.R. 5386 ), the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $105.8 million. Also, appropriations bills for the Department of Agriculture ( H.R. 5384 ) and the Department of State ( H.R. 5522 ) fund energy efficiency programs. The energy efficiency provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 ( P.L. 109-58 , H.R. 6 ) and other bills of the 109 th Congress are discussed in the " Energy Efficiency in the 109 th Congress " and " Legislation " sections below. Energy efficiency is increased when an energy conversion device, such as a household appliance, automobile engine, or steam turbine, undergoes a technical change that enables it to provide the same service (lighting, heating, motor drive) while using less energy. The energy-saving result of the efficiency improvement is often called "energy conservation." The energy efficiency of buildings can be improved through the use of certain materials (e.g., attic insulation), components (e.g., insulated windows), and design aspects (e.g., solar orientation and shade tree landscaping). Further, the energy efficiency of communities and cities can be improved through architectural design, transportation system design, and land use planning. Thus, energy efficiency involves all aspects of energy production, distribution, and end-use. These ideas of "efficiency" and "conservation" contrast with "curtailment," which decreases output (e.g., turning down the thermostat) or services (e.g., driving less) to curb energy use. That is, energy curtailment occurs when saving energy causes a reduction in services or sacrifice of comfort. Curtailment is often employed as an emergency measure. Energy efficiency is often viewed as a resource option like coal, oil, or natural gas. In contrast to supply options, however, the downward pressure on energy prices created by energy efficiency comes from demand reductions instead of increased supply. As a result, energy efficiency can reduce resource use and environmental impacts. An important aspect of energy efficiency policy is to weigh such benefits against the cost of energy efficiency investments. Various concerns and national interests drive energy efficiency policymaking. Recently, high energy prices and concerns about energy security have renewed an emphasis on energy efficiency and energy conservation to dampen electricity, natural gas, and oil demand. Energy efficiency is also driven by the potential benefits of avoiding environmental costs that would otherwise result from growth in energy supply facilities, with the attendant impacts of their effluents and emissions on land, water, air, and global climate. Further, energy efficiency is often driven by the potential to reduce consumer energy costs, but this potential can be compromised by several barriers, including perceived threats to the profitability of energy supply companies, the complexity of energy consumer decision-making, and the "rebound effect," wherein expected savings are reduced by increased consumption elsewhere. In the processes of extracting and producing energy, energy supplies are physically tangible and easily measured. In contrast, measuring energy savings and energy efficiency is more challenging. In effect, one is attempting to measure something that never happens; namely, that consumption falls below a projected level and the difference is attributed to the installation of more energy efficient equipment. The scientific approach to measuring the impact of an energy efficiency program is known as evaluation research. This technique employs surveys of actions taken by many of the individuals that receive benefits from an energy efficiency or energy conservation program. Due to the large scale of national programs and the associated cost to mount a large evaluation effort, only a few major evaluations of DOE programs have been conducted, mostly during the 1980s and early 1990s. These studies focused on assessing the energy savings from grant programs. Evaluating impacts from R&D programs is conceptually, and mechanically, much more difficult than evaluating grant programs. More than 20 years ago, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) prepared a landmark study of the decision-making behavior of energy users. The report reviewed several studies that found energy users often avoid making substantial investments in energy efficiency measures that would have been cost-effective. In particular, NAS observed that some major studies found that only 30% to 80% of economically justified investment would be induced by energy price signals. Further, it found that a belief in market effectiveness persists, despite evidence that institutional barriers to investment in energy efficiency tend to blunt the effect of market signals. The report identifies several technical, market, and information barriers to consumer investment in cost-effective energy efficiency. In particular, NAS focused on the non-rational "folk" model of consumer energy decision-making: People who try to make rational calculations based on their own assumptions [folk model] about energy would be led to make fewer energy-saving investments than an expert analyst would recommend ... they [would] interpret their investments as less effective than would an expert.... In addition, NAS points out that non-technical and non-economic factors have a major impact on energy use: More fundamentally, there is a problem with the very notion of users as investors. People do not see their purchases of energy and energy-using equipment only as investment; they have meanings unrelated to the cost of fuel. Car purchasers, for example, do not look solely at fuel efficiency. They are also concerned with performance, safety, styling, status considerations, and other factors. The report finds similar aspects are factored into decisions about home improvements that have major implications for household energy use. One important behavioral aspect of energy efficiency is the "rebound effect." This effect may reduce the measured level of energy (and cost) savings from an energy efficiency action well below the expected level. The rebound can take the form of a direct effect, where resource use is increased (e.g., drive an efficient car more miles); an indirect effect, where additional goods are purchased that use the same resource (e.g., buy a new electrical appliance for the home); or a market effect, where a lower resource price makes new uses affordable (e.g., provide electric heating for a hot tub). Studies have shown that the rebound for automobiles ranges from 10% to 30% and the rebound for home water heating ranges from 10% to 40%. However, in each case, the losses in expected energy savings are generally associated with gains in equipment service (e.g., more hours of use) or increased comfort (e.g., a more desirable temperature setting). In 1989, and again in 1995, DOE prepared a report that attempted to estimate the energy savings from its energy efficiency and energy conservation programs. From 1985 to 2005, national energy use climbed about 20 Q (quads), reaching a record high of 99.9 Q in 2005. DOE's 1995 report Energy Conservation Trends found that energy efficiency and conservation activities from 1973 through 1991 curbed the pre-1973 growth trend in annual primary energy use by about 18 Q, an 18% reduction. In 1992, DOE said this was saving the economy about $150 billion annually in total U.S. energy expenditures. These two studies used an economic modeling approach to estimate past energy savings trends, distinguish program savings from price-induced savings, and energy savings for each end-use sector. The 1995 report concluded with four basic "lessons" that provide guidance for policy development: (1) energy prices strongly affect trends in energy savings, (2) growth and structural change make energy conservation a moving target subject to continued reevaluation, (3) trends in energy savings reflect a diversity of responses among and within each sector of the economy, and (4) several areas of rising demand are diminishing or detracting from the gains in energy savings, and they present targets of opportunity for further policy attention. In 1995, EIA issued a report that attempted to address difficulties in measuring energy efficiency. The report declares that the ability to define and measure energy efficiency is essential to the DOE objective of promoting energy efficiency to help the nation manage its energy resources: In the absence of defensible energy efficiency measures, any change in consumption might be equated with a change in energy efficiency even if such fluctuations are caused by structural or behavioral effects. To contribute to the goal of accurately measuring energy efficiency, EIA developed an approach based on energy intensity. EIA notes that the task of defining and measuring energy efficiency and creating statistical measures as descriptors is a "daunting one."