Assessment of Selected Energy Efficiency Policies
Energy Information Administration
Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
The document would be more effective if organized in a manner designed to easily transmit data. Basic rundown of viability of Initiatives: Raising the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency) and the EEPS (energy efficiency) Standards of industry has the greatest benefit; Appliance Standards raising is the second-best alternative; and tax credits offer the poorest option in terms of generation of energy efficiency.
The Problem: Raising the CAFE faces the greatest organized opposition, as vehicle fuel efficiency is extremely difficult to achieve, and Car companies and Consumers (lovers of SUVs) stand in opposition. The EEPS Standard alteration is fairly redundant, as industry traditionally emplace the most fuel-efficient new Plant to be found; the difficulty here is the slow Turnover factor in Capital equipment. Appliance Standards are easy to implement politically, and easy to integrate (study Japanese technology); major Policy proposal: forbid incandescent lighting in appliances and fixtures by 2006 (run fluorescent), and forbid sale of incandescent bulbs by 2010.
Tax Incentives and Tax Credits: Ineffective and will cause great loss of Tax revenue with no Bang for the Buck. Alternative: Introduce Effective-Cost Building permits which increase in total Price concurrent with inefficient building practice.
The Good News: Pollution emissions decrease with energy efficiency.
The Bad News: Current technologies (not matter how efficient) will not reduce Energy dependence on fossil fuels. The Report cites only minor percentage reductions (the highest for Coal of 12% under Case 2). The real need is for totally new technologies! Potential avenues: Solar panel roofing, possibly topped with small roof Wind generators; development of a plastic fuel; Ocean-wave generators; and redevelopment of the railroad system. lgl