A rough rule of thumb is that energy efficiency requires investment upfront (investment isn't only cash, but also thinking) for lower costs into the future. Thus, energy efficiency is a central arena where thinking "cost to buy" often conflicts with more sensible thinking about "cost to own" (CtB v CtO). And, when it comes to energy efficiency, there is a basic truism.
The Clean Energy for Homes and Buildings Act, modeled on Oregon's bi-partisan State House Bill 2626, would offer low-interest loans to both homeowners and businesses for energy-efficiency building upgrades.
"We know that energy-efficient retrofits dramatically cut energy bills over the long term, but the initial installation costs are often too high for families or business owners to deal with," Merkley said. "This bill bolsters creative programs that offer low-cost loans for these retrofits, allowing people to start saving money as soon as the upgrades are completed."
Writ large, with the exception of conservation (changed demand patterns), 
energy efficiency is our most cost-effective and fastest approach to tackling our intertwined economic, energy, and environmental challenges.
"We have very serious energy security challenges in the world. Investing in energy efficiency saves money and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. This program would help federal, state and local governments take a leadership role. It has maximum flexibility to also assist residential, commercial and industrial property owners to make energy efficiency upgrades," Lugar said.
The U.S. Congress isn't making much news, nowadays, about real bipartisan action. Energy efficiency is a win-win-win arena which should have strong support on both sides of the aisle. If actually interested in serving the common good, this is the sort of legislation that should pass on voice vote from both the House and the Senate.
NOTE: While Merkley and Lugar merit praise for this legislation, which we should hope passes in some form, this falls short of the massive benefits that would come from adopting the Architecture 2030 W4 plan to insulate America from economic devastation.
We need to eliminate the individual home and move to multiple family housing. There should be no new individual homes allowed built.
If making improvements to my house will cost me $40,000.00 and the loan is for 30 years at no interest and the cost savings amount to $20,000.00 over 30 years then I have not saved enough money to pay back the loan.
Discussed another way, what is the payback period for the money invested ( again, with a loan interest of ZERO percent )???
Many, many US citizens are having trouble making ends meet, Shelia. How can they afford expensive alternative energy systems???
There are opportunities, in virtually every building in this country, to significantly cut energy consumption at under 7 year (10% annual ROI) and far faster terms.
If your scenario is right, then don't do it.
I imagine that there are a huge share of American homes that could take $10k or so and see well over $1k/year in savings. (Insulation, potential for new major appliances/such (HVAC, hot water heater, refrigerator, ...), sealing leaks, etc ...)
Here's what happened in CA: We finally got AB 811 passed over a year ago which allows cities and counties access to the property tax system to secure repayment for loans they offered to property owners (homes or businesses) for efficiency upgrades and/or solar/microwind. Cities and counties could get the money anywhere - bonds, private lenders, the Feds, or their own pension funds/general funds, etc. and since they take first lien on the property, the payback is totally guaranteed.
So, what has happened in this past 14 months? have hundreds of thousands of families and businesses retrofitted to slash energy use by 50% and produce the balance on their roofs? No. a few dozen have done so because NONE OF OUR CITIES OR COUNTIES WILL FUND THE DAMNED THING BECAUSE UTILITIES ARE INSISTING THEY KEEP US BURNING OUR MONEY AND THEIR FUEL.
If your great bill doesn't come with great funding, you can simply forget it. Our legislatures work for Big Energy, not for us, and they are never going to fund the loans we need (or mandate the feed in tariffs we need) so that WE, not Big Energy can own a sustainable, affordable, clean energy future. Their entire purpose is to ensure that big, central station, wilderness-killing power plants and lengthy, wasteful, SF6 spewing powerlines force us from our homes, destroy our environment and completely rip us off.
We need stronger leadership, not more half-measures.
Turn up your thermostat in the summer, down in the winter. Cost = 0
Turn down the temperature of your water heater. Cost = 0
Turn off lights when not used. Cost = 0
Turn off ty's and other appliances when not used (stereos, computers,etc.) Cost = 0
Turn off ceiling fans when leaving the room. Cost = 0
Wash clothes in cold water Cost = 0
And there are plenty of very low cost things that anybody can afford to do, i.e. cfl's, low flow showerheads, hot water heater blankets, etc.
Until consumers do these things, why invest money into equipent or improvements with long paybacks?
I also do not use a clothes dryer, dishwasher, hair dryer, electric can opener or electric knife.
Is the legislation that Mr. Siegel is referring to going to give me an interest rate of 0.15 % ( the current rate for short term funds at my bank ) for 30 years? And, will the cost savings be such that they will accumulate enough money to pay back the loan in 30 years?
The numbers are important Mr. Siegel. Most articles on this subject lake the numbers. Why???
1. I don't thinks specific interest rate is set.
2. 0.15% for 30 years is not likely to happen ... but isn't necessary.
3. Numbers are "hard" to do because while, in aggregate, there are ways to bundle into an overall average, houses and individual circumstances are different. A 30 year old subdivision with "identical" homes probably will have very few that are "identical" when it comes to energy. Some will have original heating, some months-old new systems. Some with great new windows, some with broken/decaying old ones. Etc ... etc ... Thus, one house might be able to have $20k put into it and see $3/year in savings. Another, due to a variety of reasons, might only merit $1k in work (in part because owner is heavy DIY) and yet see a 50% per annum ROI with $500+ year in reduced utility costs. There is an "it all depends". A program like this is intended to be set up so that the cost of paying back the loan money is lower than the avoided utility bills -- even without considering the high rate of inflation seen in energy bills in recent years.
it's not as sexy sounding as building 100 fancy new nuke power plants...actually that sounds like a disaster to me...but energy efficiency could replace the need for those plants, and it's cheaper. no brainer there.
Perhaps, like biogeochemical scientists are doing today in a New Mexico summit, the back end catastrophic costs should be the primary concern?
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/08/climate-change-deniers-take-hit.html
What is not being made clear is that much of the facts are computer-generated from "models" and then claims are made about the future.
More people in the US die each year from automobile accidents, heart disease, cancer, strokes, murder, suicide and other causes than die from problems with climate.
We do need to conserve energy...but that's because energy is expensive as a result of OPEC, commodity futures traders, highly paid oil company executives and hording of oil, natural gas and coal.
It costs money to have a decent standard of living. Until alternative energy sources are cheaper than what we use now, alternative energy will not succeed.
1. What about deaths from fossil fuel pollution sources, which contribute to climate change impacts?
2. Oh, the modeling boogeyman ... I'm scared. Well, all models are wrong, it is just some models are useful. Do you climb aboard planes? Do you realize that the engineering of those planes was "modeled" and that many of the responses for disaster risks are "models" rather than actual practical experience? Models are throughout our lives, do you reject them solely for climate change issues? And, this is not "just" modeling. That is a distorition.
3. Okay, what about acidification of the oceans?
4. How do you count costs? Does mercury pollution leading to making some fish unhealthy to eat a "cost" of burning coal? What about asthma cases? What about ... ? Those are part of "a decent standard of living". Or, you are solely interested in the contracted prices and refuse to think holisticly?
5. Have you taken a look at the costs of new energy sources?
A Plug for Health Care Reform 2009
Conservation is the wise-use, management, and Development of the Earths natural resources.
People are a natural resource.
Please Search:
Health Care Profiteers & Lobbyists
www.consumersunion.org
www.aft.org/fight4america
www.WeWantThePublicOption.com
CTC123GREEN
i'm all for increasing energy efficiency
although we'll never be as efficiency as nature
look how little energy a human being can run on.....
but
our main problem is growth.
growth in population
and growth in resource consumption
we must make do with less
we must stop pretending we can be green cornucopians
and become true environmentalists
nature will demand it
better to make the change on our own then be forced into it by nature