and methodology should be part of DOE’s ongoing and new programs, and adequate funding should be provided for data and analysis. This ongoing planning and evaluation analysis cannot substitute for the portfolio analysis and roadmapping exercises9 instituted over the past 2 years at DOE, but it provides an important supplement to that analysis.
In reviewing the array of benefits matrices constructed for this assessment, the committee observed that a sense of urgency about deployment and perhaps the availability of near-term, high-payoff opportunities over the past decade have caused directed exploratory research in energy efficiency to be underemphasized. The committee recommends that this kind of research receive more emphasis as the energy efficiency R&D portfolio is shaped in future years. Indeed, balance across all “regions” of the benefits matrix should be a high-priority goal, with elements of the program designed to respond to and yield benefits under a wide variety of future market conditions. Concepts and technologies with longer time horizons, for example, might have enormous payoffs under various possible future economic and environmental scenarios, and efforts to develop such concepts and technologies deserve a more prominent place in the DOE portfolio. To achieve balance in the portfolio, a broad range of considerations should be addressed, including the following:
Coordination of technology development with policy mechanisms, such as codes and standards, in scenarios of deployment (as in the very successful refrigerator program, which advances with a careful balance between efficiency standards and technology development);
The role of industry and government (at all levels) consortia in technology development (as, for example, in the case of PNGV);
The impact of economic globalization on energy and technology markets (as, for example, when such globalization affects the location and relative market strength of high-efficiency lighting technology suppliers around the world);
Provision of enabling tools to help facilitate market penetration of new energy efficiency technologies (as, for example, in the case of the development of the DOE-2 family of computer design and analysis tools); and
Integration of energy efficiency technology development with other driving forces such as health, safety, and productivity (as, for example, in the cases of IAQI&V, PNGV, and IOF).
Market adoption of technology should be an explicitly identified and central goal in DOE’s energy efficiency policies and programs. This assessment revealed many examples of effective programs and projects with a focus on adoption by the market, but many of these program efforts appear to be formulated and executed ad hoc rather than in a coordinated manner across the portfolio. If a policy priority is established for promoting the adoption of new energy efficiency technologies, the committee recommends that additional and well-coordinated emphasis in this area be effected across the energy efficiency portfolio.
For example, in energy efficiency for buildings, coordination with regulatory and policy mechanisms has proved very effective in improving the energy efficiency of commercial buildings and appliances. Similarly, in energy efficiency for industry, sponsorship of key demonstration efforts has been very effective.
Such efforts could yield benefits far greater than the costs of implementing them. Industry and government consortia could play a key role, as they did in the PNGV program, which so far shows great promise. Other interagency government programs, such as that with the Environmental Protection Agency, and government implementation programs, such as that of the Federal Energy Management Program, could be developed much further.
Builderonline.com (Builder). 2000. Top 100 builders. 1999 Gross Revenue Ranking. Available online at <http://builderonline.com/frmArt/>.
Clinton, J., H.Geller, and E.Hirst. 1986. Review of government and utility energy conservation programs. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 11:95–142.
Davis, S. 2000. Transportation Energy Data Book. Edition 20, Department of Energy, ORNL-6959. Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Department of Energy (DOE). 1979. National Energy Plan. Washington, D.C.: DOE.
DOE. 1983. National Energy Plan. Washington, D.C.: DOE.
DOE. 1985. National Energy Plan. Washington, D.C.: DOE.
DOE. 1990. National Energy Strategy. Washington, D.C.: DOE.
DOE. 1992. National Energy Strategy. Washington, D.C.: DOE.
DOE. 1994. Strategic Plan. Washington, D.C.: DOE.
DOE. 1997. Strategic Plan. Washington, D.C.: DOE.
DOE. 1998. Strategic Plan. Washington, D.C.: DOE.
DOE. 2000a. Strategic Plan. Washington, D.C.: DOE.
DOE. 2000b. IMPACTS Office of Industrial Technologies: Summary of Program Results. Washington, D.C.: DOE.
DOE. 2001. Press Release: Energy Department Provides $10.9 Million for Energy-Efficient Science Research (January 9). Available online at <http://www.energy.gov/HQPress/releases01/janpr/pr01006.htm>.
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 1997. Annual Energy Outlook 1997 with Projections to 2015. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
EIA. 1996. Annual Energy Outlook 1996 with Projections to 2015. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
EIA. 1998. Annual Energy Outlook 1999 with Projections to 2020, Appendix A, Reference Case Forecast (December 9). Available online at <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo98/aeo98.html>.
EIA. 1999. Annual Energy Review, End Use Consumption. Motor Vehicle Mileage, Fuel Consumption, and Fuel Rates 1949–1998, pp. 3–19, line 18. Available online at <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/enduse.html>.