Financing Energy Efficiency

  • More than half the houses in the U.S. were built before 1970. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laborator)

Reducing your carbon footprint
by using less energy can cost
money. Efficient cars, energy
efficient homes, and energy-saving
appliances all take money. That’s
why some states are testing whether
homeowners would be willing
to borrow money to upgrade their
homes and, in turn, save a few
bucks in energy costs. In one
state, the plan is to get private
banks and credit unions to finance
energy efficiency. Peter Payette reports:

Transcript

Reducing your carbon footprint
by using less energy can cost
money. Efficient cars, energy
efficient homes, and energy-saving
appliances all take money. That’s
why some states are testing whether
homeowners would be willing
to borrow money to upgrade their
homes and, in turn, save a few
bucks in energy costs. In one
state, the plan is to get private
banks and credit unions to finance
energy efficiency. Peter Payette reports:

When you hear green building, you might think of a fancy new house with solar panels. But most homes are not new, so reducing the amount of energy communities use means doing something about old houses.

Max Strickland owns a business in Michigan that certifies green homes and buildings. He says more than half the houses in the U.S. were built before 1970.

“We had very little energy code requirements previous to that.”

But upgrades cost money that many homes owners don’t always have. And a lot of people saw whatever equity they had in their house disappear during the past couple of years.

Now, the State of Michigan is trying to help people find the money to make their homes more energy efficient. The program is called Michigan Saves. The state launched the pilot project in a rural area of the state. The pilot is a collaboration of a local credit union, an electric cooperative and a building supply company.
Borrowers will have their new payment tacked onto their monthly utility bill.

Trevor Williams is with Brown Lumber, the building supply company involved in the pilot. Williams says it’s likely most of the improvements will be in heating costs. He says to begin with, home owners will be encouraged to have an energy audit.

“The audit it would say things that need to be done, the top three things that are recommended. Furnace replacement, ceiling ducts and weatherizing the house those going to be the three most common items.”

But homeowners can also borrow money for new energy efficient appliances like refrigerators and hot water heaters. Sometimes loans like this are promoted as immediately paying for themselves. That is, it’s suggested the money you save on your utility bills will fully cover your new payment. That’s not necessarily the case.

Marc McKeller is with Members Credit Union which is financing the project. He says after a few years, people will be able to break even on the costs. Government tax incentives and other rebates will help that happen. But McKellar says people shouldn’t expect to take out a loan, retrofit their house and not have more to pay each month.

“The only way it could be was if a government was to give zero percent loans out and that they received tremendous rebates from the utilities and that they received a tremendous government credit.”


But, McKellar says it’s still a good deal. The interest rate for project’s loans will be a little bit better because the state is backing the loans.

And tight credit means not many banks are loaning people money to make their house energy efficient and not many people are putting money into a home that’s lost value because of the housing market bust. That’s one of the reasons they need to run a pilot project.

“They’re trying to determine through this study, how do you get a consumer to actually do this and what are the benefits?”

The directors of Michigan Saves hope to roll out a statewide program later this year. So far no banks have agreed to participate but there are other credit unions interested in the concept.

For The Environment Report, I’m Peter Payette.

Related Links

Keeping the Breadbasket From Drying Up

  • Bob Price is one of many farmers in Southwestern Kansas who signed up for a government program that pays farmers for their water rights and put portions of their land back into grass. (Photo by Devin Browne)

Right now, America’s Bread Basket
relies on an aquifer that’s nearly
drained. And, many say, it will dry
up if farmers keep pumping water
from it at the current rate. Devin
Browne reports the government plans
to pay farmers as one way to get them
to cut water use:

Transcript

Right now, America’s Bread Basket
relies on an aquifer that’s nearly
drained. And, many say, it will dry
up if farmers keep pumping water
from it at the current rate. Devin
Browne reports the government plans
to pay farmers as one way to get them
to cut water use:

Bob Price is every bit the Heartland farmer. He’s dressed head-to-toe in denim with a belt
buckle the size of a small plate. Just like his neighbors, he grows thirsty plants like corn
and alfalfa. But, the land is so dry and so sandy that many agricultural experts think it’s
not suitable for farming.

When Price moved to Southwestern Kansas in 1973, it didn’t seem to matter that the land
was so dry. In his pick-up, on the way to his farm, he tells me that it was the beginning
of an irrigation boom.

“Out here everyone was getting up early, going to work, and all along Highway 50 it was
irrigation pumps, irrigation pipe, engines; this was like a frontier back then.”

At that time, the government heavily subsidized the costs of irrigation. The farmers were
getting an almost immediate return. Their land appreciated almost overnight once
irrigation was established.

Farmers began to pump water – and lots of it – from one of the world’s largest
underground water supplies, the Ogallala Aquifer. They pumped two-feet of water for
every acre they farmed, right onto their crops.

“Meanwhile, the water table is declining and the water that we’re pumping is coming
from farther and farther down and, even with the same energy cost, it cost more to suck
water out of the ground from 500 feet.”

Last year, it cost Price more than $200,000 for the electricity to run the pumps to irrigate
about 900 acres of land. It’s one of the reasons he started to consider other options.

At the same time, the government, on both the state and federal level, started to think of
how to save the water left in the Ogallala Aquifer. Rivers were drying up and several
states in the Plains were suing or being sued for taking more water than they’re allowed.

Several states initiated water conservation programs as a response; Kansas was the first to
do it without the threat of a lawsuit. The program started in 2007. The strategy: pay
farmers to permanently retire their water rights.

Price had actually been wanting to take some of his land out of crops anyways. He’s a
prairie chicken enthusiast and he wants to start a guided hunting business. Prairie
chickens need prairie grass.

“So we’re farming one day, and we’re thinking, ‘sure would be nice to get that into
grass,’ but that’s an overwhelmingly expensive proposition.”

It’s not expensive to plant or grow prairie grass. You don’t need any irrigation for either.
But you do need irrigation for a cover crop that the farmers are required to grow for two
years before they can get to the grass. Susan Stover is with the Kansas Water Office.

“If we did not get something re-established there, we could have potentially dust storms
again and sand dunes moving and really big blow-outs.”

Blow-outs like Depression-Era, Dust Bowl blow-outs. So Price has to plant a cover crop
and pat double what he gets from the conservation program just to irrigate it.

Ironically, the government pays him sizeable subsidies to keep other land in corn, which
needs water from the aquifer to grow. So basically, one government program is paying
Price to stop using so much water, while, at the same time, other government programs
are paying him subsidies to grow the crops that need so much water.

Price would actually like more money to put the land back into grass, but if he wants to
lead hunting trips for prairie chickens and he wants prairie grass, there’s only one outfit
willing to pay him anything to plant that grass – the government.

For The Environment Report, I’m Devin Browne.

Related Links

National Parks Get a Little Green

  • Junior Rangers-to-be explore the beach at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. (Photo courtesy of the National Park Service)

There was a time – not that long ago –
when a lot of the National Parks in the
country were strapped for cash. They
were cutting staff and cutting services.
But, Mark Brush reports, now Congress
is investing more in the parks:

Transcript

There was a time – not that long ago –
when a lot of the National Parks in the
country were strapped for cash. They
were cutting staff and cutting services.
But, Mark Brush reports, now Congress
is investing more in the parks:

It started changing in the last year or two of the Bush Administration. The Bush White House realized that the National Park System was coming up on its 100th Anniversary in 2016.

No one wanted the Centennial marred by crumbling roads or Parks that were understaffed. So Washington pledged to increase the overall budget for the National Park Service by 100 million each year until the Centennial.

And folks like Tom Ulrich say Congress has been making good on that pledge. He’s the deputy superintendent at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore on Lake Michigan.

“A few years ago our discussions weren’t, you know, ‘Well, we got a little bit of extra money how are we going to spend that?’ They were, ‘We have to cut from last year. What are we going to cut?’ And so it’s nice to have those discussions change.”

Ulrich says a lot of National Parks are also getting some money from the stimulus package passed earlier this year.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

What Counts as Green Collar?

  • President Obama has said that a move toward clean energy production has enormous job creation potential. But some researchers say that’s overblown. (Source: Kmadison at Wikimedia Commons)

At the heart of President Obama’s economic recovery plan is the promise of new green collar jobs. Workers concerned about being laid off from their blue collar jobs are starting to wonder what those new jobs will look like. Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

At the heart of President Obama’s economic recovery plan is the promise of new green collar jobs. Workers concerned about being laid off from their blue collar jobs are starting to wonder what those new jobs will look like. Julie Grant reports:

Michelle Forte has been a dye maker at the General Motors plant in Parma, Ohio for 15 years. She says everyone at work is worried about the future of the plant, and the prospects of the whole company.

“It’s a scary industry to be in right now. They keep on sending our work to China. And my job could be next, you just don’t know. It’s scary to live in that environment every day. You go into work and it’s negative all the time.”

Forte hasn’t gotten a raise in 6 years. And in the future, if she stays as autoworker, she’s going to be making a lot less.

“I will tell you what I made last year, and that was $80,000. And this year, with the concessions that we’ve took and the overtime that we’ve lost, I will be lucky to make $60,000. So, yeah, it’s a drastic cut.”

Forte decided to take advantage of job training money available at GM. She gets up a five in the morning to start work, then after her shift she heads to school.

She and two co-workers have started taking courses at the new Green Academy at Cuyahoga Community College. They’re learning what it takes to install solar panels, wind turbines, and to make buildings energy efficient. It’s tough getting home after 10 at night. But Forte says learning to work in the clean energy field is a positive step for their future.

“Because we wanted to get in on the ground floor. If it breaks open like we think it is, we want to have the education under our belt already.”

But most autoworkers aren’t betting on an explosion of green jobs. At least, they aren’t spending their time in training classes – even if they’ve already been laid off.

Joe Rugola is president of the AFL-CIO of Ohio. The union represents everyone from musicians to office workers to electricians.

Rugola says people who’ve been laid off have to make impossible choices if they decide to start training in a new industry – do they continue looking for jobs to keep the unemployment check coming in – or do they go to school for retraining?

“Am I going to go for training, if I’m already laid off, am I going to risk my unemployment benefits, and go for training in an industry that may or may not produce real work down the road? A person in that situation should not have to make that choice.”

And that’s the big gamble. Do they invest time and effort to retrain for jobs that might never materialize?

President Obama has said that a move toward clean energy production has enormous job creation potential. But some researchers say that’s overblown.

Andrew Dorchak is a researcher with the Case Western Reserve University law library. He coauthored a study titled Green Job Myths.

The first myth: that there is a common understanding of what makes something a green job.

“We’ve figured out that there wasn’t a really good definition of green jobs. Especially if there are political subsidies involved that might be problematic.”

Problematic because many of the jobs classified as green today aren’t making wind turbines and solar panels in the Midwest. They’re lobbyists, administrative assistants, and janitors working for environmental organizations in New York and Washington.

And he’s concerned the definition of green jobs will get even wider as government pockets get deeper.

“It’s subject to maneuvering. To people fighting to classify their jobs as green.”

Dorchak says companies will chase the subsidies. That could take away from government money to create productive jobs.

Jobs that could help people like Michelle Forte find work – and improve the environment at the same time.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Farmers to Help With Flooding

  • Farmers have until the end of this week to apply for a program that would pay them to let in more flood water (Photo by Keith Weller, courtesy of the USDA)

Some federal stimulus money will be used to help reduce reduce flooding problems. Chuck Quirmbach reports the government wants farmers to store more water in floodplains:

Transcript

Some federal stimulus money will be used to help reduce flooding problems. Chuck Quirmbach reports that the government wants farmers to store more water in floodplains:

The federal stimulus package has 145-million dollars to buy easements on farmland.

Farmers have until the end of this week to apply for a program that would pay them to let in more flood water.

Land that’s flooded within the last year or twice in the last decade is eligible.

Don Baloun is with the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service. He says farmers would eventually stop growing some crops and instead allow the planting of water-absorbing trees or grasses.

“If it has been obstructed and farmed let’s say with a dike or levee, we would breach that dike or levee and open up the floodplain, the field in particular, to store floodwaters and relieve the downstream damages.”

Baloun says allowing more water back into floodplains might reduce the threat of flooding to towns and cities along rivers.

For The Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Energy Tax Credits for Next Year

  • Tucked away in the bailout package were energy tax cuts for Americans (Source: Man-ucommons at Wikimedia Commons)

We’ve all heard about the 700-
billion dollar bail-out for Wall Street.
Getting a lot less attention was another
17-billion dollars for energy tax credits.
Lester Graham reports you can take advantage
of some of that money for your house:

Transcript

We’ve all heard about the 700-
billion dollar bail-out for Wall Street.
Getting a lot less attention was another
17-billion dollars for energy tax credits.
Lester Graham reports you can take advantage
of some of that money for your house:

Starting in January you can earn as much as $500 in tax credits for home
improvements that save energy. The credit will be taken right off the top of taxes you’ll
owe for 2009.


Ronnie Kweller is with the group Alliance to Save Energy. She says the credits can
cover a lot.


“Energy Star windows. It also includes lower-cost products like additional insulation,
sealing and caulking and weather-stripping – all those kind of things to tighten up your
home and make it energy efficient. As well as highly-efficient heating and cooling
equipment.”


Kweller says her group has details on the new consumer tax credits on its website:
ase.org.


Keep your receipts, and you’ll have to remember to file the right IRS form to take
advantage of the tax credits.


For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Winter’s Chill to Bring Bigger Bill

  • Due to the price of natural gas and crude oil, it is predicted that it will cost you much more to heat your home this winter (Photo by John Ferguson, courtesy of FEMA)

As summer winds down, you’re
probably not thinking about your
heating bill. But that’s something
market analysts are thinking about
right now. And reporter Kyle Norris
finds the predictions of what it will
cost to heat your home are going up
in a big way:

Transcript

As summer winds down, you’re
probably not thinking about your
heating bill. But that’s something
market analysts are thinking about
right now. And reporter Kyle Norris
finds the predictions of what it will
cost to heat your home are going up
in a big way:


This year the average cost of heating your home is going to cost a good
chunk more than what it did last year.

Doug MacIntyre is an analyst with the US Energy Information
Administration.

“We’re estimating that, on average, the household using natural gas to
heat their home will be spending 24% more than last year. For heating
oil we think the increase will be even higher with house holds spending
about 36% more than they did last year.”

Those predications are made by looking at the cost of things like natural
gas and crude oil. And by analyzing the weather forecast for the up-
coming winter.

MacIntyre says he does not expect these expensive heating costs to go
away anytime in the next few years.

For The Environment Report, I’m Kyle Norris.

Related Links

Faster Payback on Hybrids

  • High gas prices cause some hybrid vehicles to recoup prices faster (Photo by Ben VanWagoner)

Hybrid cars are generally more expensive than their gasoline counterparts. But as Lisa Ann Pinkerton reports, high gas prices mean several hybrid models are recouping their costs faster:

Transcript

Hybrid cars are generally more expensive than their gasoline counterparts. But as Lisa Ann Pinkerton reports, high gas prices mean several hybrid models are recouping their costs faster:

Hybrid cars like the Nissan Altima and Toyota Prius take around 4 years to pay back their premium. That’s according to the automobile research firm Edmonds.com. The GMC Yukon hybrid has the shortest payback period of the SUVs – almost five years. The hybrid that comes in dead last is the Lexus 600H.

John O’Dell at Edmunds.com says the Lexus could take over 80 years to recoup its premium.

“In that case you have a v8 engine that’s hybridized you’re really using the hybrid for some additional power and performance. You’re not using it – well you are using it for a little bit of gas savings – but we compute those saving to be a mere $192 dollars a year.”

That’s compared to more than a thousand dollars a year in gas savings for the Yukon and the Prius.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lisa Ann Pinkerton

Related Links

Crop Prices Cut Into Conservation

  • Corn production in Colorado. (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA Agricultural Research Service)

With grain prices hitting record highs, a lot
of farmers are removing land from the federal Conservation
Reserve Program. The CRP pays farmers to stop growing
crops on poor land and instead grow trees or grass cover.
That creates habitat for wildlife. The US Department of
Agriculture, which runs the program, says the CRP is still
in good shape. Katherine Glover reports some conservationists
disagree:

Transcript

With grain prices hitting record highs, a lot
of farmers are removing land from the federal Conservation
Reserve Program. The CRP pays farmers to stop growing
crops on poor land and instead grow trees or grass cover.
That creates habitat for wildlife. The US Department of
Agriculture, which runs the program, says the CRP is still
in good shape. Katherine Glover reports some conservationists
disagree:

When the Conservation Reserve Program started in 1985, David Schoenborn was among
the first on board.

He stopped farming some of his land and let natural cover grow. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture paid him. Usually land that wasn’t the best farmland or land that was prone
to erosion was set aside for the program.

Conservationists say CRP has been great for reducing soil erosion, improving water
quality and restoring wildlife habitat.

But this year, for the first time, Schoenborn is letting some of his CRP contracts expire.

“It’s not a bad program, but the payments have to be more to keep them in line with the
rest of the farming economy.”

Corn and other grain prices are at record highs. So a lot of farmers are taking land out of
CRP and plowing it up. The program lost more than two million acres last September.

It could have been much worse. Originally sixteen million acres were set to expire in ’07.
But, in 2006 the USDA offered landowners the option to renew their contracts. About 80
to 85 percent of the land was re-enrolled.

The USDA is focusing its conservation efforts towards environmentally sensitive lands
and critical wildlife habitat.

Perry Aasness is the state director for the USDA Farm Service Agency in Minnesota.

“We’re not enrolling whole fields of land anymore, but there are still conservation
programs which we call the continuous CRP and that primarily focuses on really
targeting buffer strips, waterways, and that sort of thing.”

The targeted programs pay more than the general CRP contracts, making them more
attractive to farmers. Schoenborn, for example, is reenrolling eligible lands in these
targeted programs.

Altogether, the various programs have about 34 million acres enrolled. This is slightly
above the average enrollment for the past ten years, but less than the 39 million acres
authorized by Congress. Aasness says the program is still in good shape.

“I think the overall percentage of land going into production from CRP is pretty
minimal.”

But conservationists have a different perspective. They want to see as much land as
possible enrolled in CRP.

Dave Nomsen is with the conservation group Pheasants Forever:

“Frankly I think the program is more in doubt than it ever has been. It’s great that
farmers are benefiting from record crop prices but it’s making it a real challenge to keep
conservation as part of that agricultural landscape.”

And political pressure is part of that challenge.

The American Bakers Association even asked the government to let CRP contracts expire
early so farmers can plant more grain. This would hopefully lower the price of flour.

But a huge reduction in CRP acres is unlikely. Both Republicans and Democrats support
CRP.

Dave Nomsen with Pheasants Forever says the problem is finding enough money to make
it worth it to farmers.

CRP payments do change over time depending on the market. But Nomsen says they
haven’t kept up.

“It’s been lagging behind by several years. We just don’t have the money to raise it up to
an equal basis, but if we can get those payments high enough the long-term nature of the
contracts, the many, many other benefits of the program will hopefully sell the program
for farmers and landowners.”

Farmer David Schoenborn says payments vary, but generally he gets between 75 and 90
dollars an acre. By planting corn, he thinks he could make at least $400 an acre. But he’d
stay in CRP if payments increased just 30 percent.

That’s not likely. So chances are that more farmers will be putting land that’s set aside
for wildlife back into crops.

For the Environment Report, I’m Katherine Glover.

Related Links