ACEEE Chief Calls 2011 Energy Efficiency Progress a Mixed Bag

by | Dec 30, 2011

This article is included in these additional categories:

Efforts to improve energy efficiency progressed in many areas in 2011 while stagnating in others, according to the executive director of American Council For An Energy Efficient Economy.

Writing for Internet-based energy community The Energy Collective, Steve Nadel (pictured) says that he is pleased with 2011 investment in energy efficiency. He expects utility-sector spending on such projects to total around $6 billion for the year and also called 2011 the “peak year” for energy efficiency-related state and local government spending using funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Nadel also praises progress at the state level on the introduction of energy efficient building codes and improving incentives for utility investments in energy efficiency. Some 35 states now have such building codes and two states – Arizona and Missouri – introduced efficiency incentives for utilities. A further four states have cases pending, according to Nadel.

Less impressive was progress made at the federal level, Nadel argues. His particular bugbears include the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee – which he complains produced two bipartisan energy efficiency bills but, due to the ongoing political gridlock in Washington, failed to get either to the Senate floor.

Presumably trying to grease Washington’s political wheels, the American Council For An Energy Efficient Economy released its suggestions for future regulation on heavy-duty trucks, earlier this month.

The EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are due to next consider fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for such trucks by 2020 or before, and the ACEEE believes that trailer efficiency should be the first item on the agencies’ agenda.

Additional articles you will be interested in.

Stay Informed

Get E+E Leader Articles delivered via Newsletter right to your inbox!

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Share This