For the Environmental Protection Agency's Climate Protection (energy efficiency) Programs ( H.R. 5386 ), the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $105.8 million. 5522 ) fund energy efficiency programs. As a result, energy efficiency can reduce resource use and environmental impacts. To support this initiative, the DOE FY2007 request for energy efficiency programs proposes major funding increases for hydrogen and fuel cell technology programs. Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT, P.L. 6 , concern had been raised about delays in the implementation of previously enacted laws that had directed DOE to establish energy efficiency standards for certain equipment. On January 31, 2006, DOE released a report to Congress with a schedule for setting new appliance efficiency standards. 109-58 (§101) calls for the implementation of a plan for congressional buildings to meet the energy efficiency goal for federal agencies noted above. In late July 2006, a group of more than 50 organizations including the Edison Electric Institute, more than 20 electric and gas utilities, the president of the National Association of Regulatory Commissioners (NARUC), and 16 state regulatory agencies issued a National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency , calling on the electric power industry to pursue a major effort to improve energy efficiency. The regulation of automobile fuel efficiency to curb petroleum use has been one of the most controversial aspects of energy efficiency policy. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program for new cars and light trucks achieved significant energy savings through 1985 but has remained relatively flat since then. Critics say that recent CAFE increases for light trucks are too small, given concerns about high gasoline prices, air pollution, and CO 2 emissions. Proponents contend that larger CAFE increases would compromise safety and cause hardship for manufacturers. Bush Administration and expanded by the Clinton Administration. Further, it encourages incentives for energy efficiency in vehicles, biofuels, fuel cells, and air transportation. Foreign Assistance Programs

The Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2006, provided $100 million for "energy conservation, energy efficiency, and clean energy" to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in developing countries. Because of the lack of justification in the DOE FY2007 budget request, both the House and Senate appropriations committees declined to provide funding for APP in the FY2007 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill ( H.R. 5427 ). H.R. First, the program for Energy, Biodiversity, and the Environment would, according to the Committee report (p. 65), provide $180 million "to support policies and programs in developing countries that promote energy efficiency, renewable energy, and cleaner energy technologies...." Also, $3 million would be provided for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) partnership with DOE for the hydropower Clean Energy Technology Exports Initiative (CETEI).
Energy efficiency issues include research and development (R&D) priorities, funding for climate-related efficiency programs, implementation of equipment efficiency standards, regulation of vehicle fuel efficiency, and electricity industry ratemaking for energy efficiency profitability. The Bush Administration has proposed an Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI) to accelerate hydrogen programs. For the Department of Energy's (DOE's) energy efficiency R&D programs, the Administration seeks $484.7 million, with increases for Hydrogen and Hybrid/Electric Propulsion. The request would cut $74.8 million from the Weatherization Program and eliminate controversial funding earmarks. The House-passed version of the FY2007 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5427) would fund AEI and cut earmarks. The Senate Appropriations Committee has also approved AEI funding and would cut earmarks even further than the House.
Energy efficiency programs have long been justified for the ability to reduce petroleum use and curb environmental impacts such as air pollution. This made it economically and administratively convenient to have them also serve as part of a low cost "no regrets" policy to reduce greenhouse gas (especially CO2) emissions. In addition to DOE funding, H.R. 5386 would provide about $100 million for the Environmental Protection Agency's energy efficiency program, and the Senate Appropriations Committee's version of H.R. 5522 would provide about $200 million for energy efficiency-related programs in developing countries.
DOE's implementation of equipment efficiency standards has been a subject of some congressional criticism. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT, P.L. 109-58) directed DOE to report to Congress on actions taken to address the concern. In response, DOE issued a schedule for rulemakings on 30 products. EPACT also raised the goals for energy efficiency in federal agencies and provided modest tax incentives for efficiency in certain vehicles and buildings.
Automobile fuel efficiency regulation has been one of the most controversial aspects of energy efficiency policy. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program for new cars and light trucks achieved significant energy savings through 1985 but has remained relatively flat since then. Critics say that recent CAFE increases for light trucks are too small, given concerns about high gasoline prices, air pollution, and CO2 emissions. Proponents counter that larger CAFE increases would compromise safety and cause hardship for manufacturers.
The National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency aims to defer the need for 20,000 megawatts of new electric power plant capacity. Its success will depend mainly on the ability of state regulators to make energy efficiency profitable for electricity companies, by addressing the link between profits and sales.
This report will be updated as events warrant.