    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        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

                                     ______

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    48-736PS                  WASHINGTON : 2009
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    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

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

                     HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          RALPH M. HALL, Texas
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
    LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California              Wisconsin
    DAVID WU, Oregon                     LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              DANA ROHRABACHER, California
    BRAD MILLER, North Carolina          ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona          FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
    DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland           JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
    MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio                W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
    BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico             RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
    PAUL D. TONKO, New York              BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
    PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama             MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
    STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey        MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
    JIM MATHESON, Utah                   BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee             ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
    BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky               PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              PETE OLSON, Texas
    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
                                     ------

                     Subcommittee on Energy and Environment

                     HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chairman
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
    LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California          VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
    GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona          W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
    DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland           RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
    BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico             MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
    PAUL D. TONKO, New York
    JIM MATHESON, Utah
    LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
    BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               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

                                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
      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

     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.

                                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 long-lived 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 forest 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 Industrial 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 ``self-tuning'' 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the
    Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities.
    Washington, DC. P. 78.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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
    near-term 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 three-quarters 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 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 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 cleaner, 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 improve 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.
        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
    SystemTM.
        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.
        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 Energy-
    Efficient 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 Chairman 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. 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 partnerships. 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\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ EPACT 05 was codified into law as Pub. L. No. 109-58; EISA as
    Pub. L. No. 110-140.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ DOE, 2008 Building Energy Data Book.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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
    buildings\3\ 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\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \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.
        \4\ DOE, 2008 Building Technologies Multi-Year Program Plan, http:/
    /www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/corporate/
    myp08complete.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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.
        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\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ More 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/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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 high-performance building
            technologies by disseminating information on new technologies
            within the commercial building community. A high-performance
            commercial building offers improved energy, economic, and
            environmental performance 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\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Source: 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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-for-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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ See Section 410 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
    of 2009.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ See http://www.energycodes.gov/news/arra/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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.

                           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 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 out\1\ 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 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Mr. Coad asked that ``run out'' be changed to read ``peak.''
    See attached June 19, 2009 letter.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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.
        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 high-performance 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 high-performance 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.
        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.

        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.

     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 first-rate
    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 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.
        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 consumption 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 energy-
    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 behavior-smart
    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 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 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Zero energy buildings produce as much energy as they use over
    the course of a year.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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 attitude-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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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 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).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ More information is available on the BECC Conference web site
    at www.BECCconference.org

    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 campaign 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 behavior-related 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 energy-wise 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.

        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 behavior-oriented 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 consumers 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
    site\4\ 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=cal.showPledge
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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 energy-
    efficient 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 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 energy-
    efficient 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:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Zero energy buildings produce as much energy as they use over
    the course of a year.

              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.

    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.

    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.

                     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.
        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 market-acceptable
    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 solutions 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 high-performance buildings, United Technologies Corporation (UTC)
    offers recommendations 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 co-chair 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

                      Extend current codes and tighten over time

                      Display energy performance labels

                      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

                      Establish tax incentives, subsidies and creative
                    financial models to lower first-cost and technology
                    adoption hurdles

              Encourage integrated design approaches and
            innovations

                      Improve contractual terms to promote integrated
                    design teams

                      Incentivize integrated team formation

              Fund energy savings technology development programs

                      Accelerate rates of efficiency improvement for
                    energy technologies

                      Improve building control systems to fully exploit
                    energy saving opportunities

              Develop workforce capacity for energy saving

                      Create and prioritize training and vocational
                    programs

                      Develop ``system integrator'' profession

              Mobilize for an energy-aware culture

                      Promote behavior change and improve understanding
                    across the sector

                      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 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 water-cooled 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 micro-turbines, 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\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Throughout 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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. 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 report\2\ states:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ D.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.

             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:

                      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

                      Rigorous and scalable process and tool environment
                    for building project requirements management & system
                    architecture exploration

                      Integrated mechanical and control design methodology
                    and simulation environment

                      Architectural exploration tools with rigorous
                    capture of performance uncertainties

              Optimization and Control of Multi-scale Dynamics

                      Analytical techniques for system decomposition,
                    analysis and uncertainty propagation in heterogeneous,
                    networked, multi-scale building systems

                      Optimization and simulation techniques for multi-
                    scale computations

                      Nonlinear dynamical systems theory tools to exploit
                    natural dynamics

              Robust Control and Decision Support Algorithms

                      Control and Commissioning Systems

                      Supervisory and de-centralized control theory and
                    algorithms

                      Estimation and machine learning techniques to
                    synthesize actionable information from heterogeneous,
                    asynchronous and uncertain data streams

                      Automated fault detection and diagnostic (FDD)
                    capabilities using building automation systems

        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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ See for example the PITAC report ``Computational Science:
    Ensuring America's Competitiveness,'' June 2005.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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 multi-disciplinary 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 BACnet\4\ 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \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.

    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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide, The American Institute of
    Architects, 2007.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In the area of retrofitting, R&D targets should include similar
    elements to those recommended above for the computational development
    but should target specific 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 renewable
            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.

                        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 space-based 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.
    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 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.
        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.
        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.
        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
    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 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 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 nobody 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 because 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
    specifically, 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 high-performance 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 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 provide 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
    supply us a fossil-based economy, is there a way to deal with
    counter-economics 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 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 percent 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?
        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 net-zero-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 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-and-a-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 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 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
    efficient-wise?
        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 commissions 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 high-performance 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.]
                                   Appendix:

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

                       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 Air-Conditioning 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 building 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 whole-building 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 multi-year 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, 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 re-tested for total
    performance before it is ready for use in production or community-scale
    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 Net-Zero 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 Net-Zero 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.

    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 high-performance green buildings. DOE will
    continue these highly productive partnerships and seek to expand its
    partnerships going forward.
                       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.
                       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 energy-efficient 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
    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.