January 31st, 2011 · Comments Off on Going on the Attack for Amtrak
BruceMcF is a thinker re rail transportation who merits heeding … in this guest post, he looks at Amtrak’s value as it faces the budgetary axe threat from the Republican Study Committee.
The Bush budgets for 2006 and 2007 proposed ending federal support of Amtrak, the only US national passenger rail service.In fiscal 2005, the federal subsidy to Amtrak was $1.2 billion, which is what Bush spends in six days in Iraq.
Now, that was a 2005 fight by Resident George W. Bush, after he won his first Presidential election and his second term in office. So as one of their “new ideas”, the new Republican House proposes the same old same old.
What a big surprise. Really, you could knock me over with a feather {Legal Disclaimer: Strictly speaking, a bronze plated ostrich feather when I am already in danger of losing my balance}.
January 29th, 2011 · Comments Off on Growth is always good!
This guest post from Veritas Curat (“the truth cures”) merits reading … As currently structured, our economic system is defined simply: growth is good, stagnation bad, and contraction disastrous. In fact, the demand for ever-continuing growth faces Malthusian-like challenges about sustainability in terms of global resources. For a century, humanity’s growth has been propelled via eating into Earth’s capital — most notably, not solely, hydrocarbons (but also fossil acquifer water, minerals, top soil, etc …).
Studying the interrelated crises afflicting our world, scientists see more clearly than politicians that there is no technological fix. No magic bullet can save us from cropland erosion, deforestation, poison by pollution, wholesale extinctions of plant and animal species, climate disruptions and consequent famines. That is because our political economy is harnessed to growth: it sets its goals and measures its performance by how fast corporate profits accelerate. So, to save ourselves, we will have to want different things, seek different pleasures, pursue different goals, than those that have been driving us and our global economy. New values and new ways of meeting our needs must arise now, while we still have room to maneuver – and that’s precisely what is happening. They are emerging at this every moment, like green shoots through the rubble of a dysfunctional society.
This weekend, a gaggle of America’s wealthiest and most powerful individuals are gathered in a luxurious hotel near Rancho Mirage, California. Under the tutelage of the libertarian multi-billionaire Koch brothers, this secretive conclave gathers yet again to conspire on paths to undermine American liberties and weaken the Union to favor their special interests. Koch University educates this elite about paths to gain even greater power for themselves at the expense of the vast majority of Americans.
This uber-rich gang has collaborated funding astro-turf activities to provide false veneers of popular support for destructive policies, supported the creation and maintenance of ‘think tanks’ to drive America’s policy discussion ever further to the right, and been a prime player in driving America’s political discussion away from substance into distortion.
This cabal’s conclaves have occurred with greater secrecy than the election of a Pope, with virtually no press coverage and little information as to how the Koch brothers assemble these powerful to coordinate actions that undermine American democracy and weaken the prospects for future prosperity.
Last year, to the dismay of many involved, some of the documentation (invitations and otherwise) related to the meeting leaked. And, this weekend’s session is occurring with greater visibility … and significant protest.
A Greenpeace airship today flew over the secretive Rancho Mirage polluter strategy meeting hosted by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries. Wealthy elite interests and oil tycoons arriving at the posh resort to plot their anti-democracy agenda were greeted with the aerial message “Koch Brothers: Dirty Money.”
With a combined worth of $43 billion, these two aging, archconservative brothers are America’s leading funders of the climate-disinformation machine. By perpetuating the use of fossil fuels, they in turn fuel their sprawling empire of oil refineries and pipelines — the second-largest private corporation in the country. The Kochs have contributed $5 million to Americans for Prosperity, the driving force behind the Tea Party. They also gave nearly $25 million to conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, two of the leading players in the climate-denial racket.
And to help kill climate legislation in Congress, Koch spent $38 million on lobbying — more than any energy company except ExxonMobil and Chevron. Last year, besides underwriting a host of conservative candidates in the midterm elections, the Koch brothers backed Proposition 23, the unsuccessful effort to end California’s crackdown on climate pollution, and funded attacks against the EPA’s right to regulate carbon emissions. In David Koch’s twisted view, global warming is actually good for us. “The Earth will be able to support enormously more people,” he says, “because a far greater land area will be available to produce food.”
This secretive cabal includes media ‘elite’ like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, ‘elite’ politicians like Bob McDonnell and Jim DeMint, and non-partisan federal ‘servants’ like Supreme Court Justices Antonio Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas is in a whirlwind of controversy for what looks to have almost certainly been deliberated violations of Federal Law, due to his repeated and continued deceit about his wife’s earnings in financial disclosure statements. These violations are felony offenses. If we were talking Avon sales, this deceit might merit overlooking. However, Ginny Thomas’ ‘earnings’ came almost entirely from institutions funded by the Koch Brothers (and others in the Koch cabal) moves this from paperwork annoyance to a major question of judicial ethics and potential criminal conspiracy. How many of those funding Ginny’s activities have had cases of concern (with financial implications!) go to the Supreme Court? How many of these have hung out at Koch U coffee breaks chatting up Justice Thomas, with Thomas well aware that his household income depends on their goodwill? A legitimate question to ask, with Justice Thomas at these events, is whether Koch U is simply a training ground for paths to undermine American Democracy and further enrich plutocrats or actually a breeding grounds for criminal conspiracy for influence over a Supreme Court Justice via sending money into his household through his wife.
And, Sunday, 30 January, a live netcast panel will examine the Koch Brothers. The panel will feature Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary, Van Jones, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Irvine Law Dean, Lee Fang, Center for American Progress investigative journalist and Koch Brothers expert, and DeAnn McEwen, Co-President of the California Nurses Association.
This guest post from Veritas Curat (“the truth cures”) merits reading … As currently structured, economics tell us that “the Earth’s not worth saving.
“Socialism collapsed because it did not allow prices to tell the economic truth. Capitalism may collapse because it does not allow prices to tell the ecological truth.” – Oystein Dahle, former Vice President, Exxon, Norway
A question to ask: Is Dahle too optimistic, is it only Capitalism at risk of collapse?
I’m wondering these days what an economy is for. I always assumed that it had a purpose somehow associated with human happiness. But lately I’ve been wondering if our economy is a machine that is being driven by fools into a future of great misery and suffering.
The word “economy” has Greek roots: “oikos” and “nemein”
The oikos was the most basic and fundamental unit of classical Greek civilization; a civilization which arose gradually from the dark ages following the fall of Mycenae. An oikos was a human survival unit consisting of a small landholding (often in the ballpark of 10 acres or so) worked by the family living on it and one or more slaves they may have possessed. “Nemein” means “appropriating” or “distributing” (or even “feeding”).
Jim Houser and his wife have owned an auto repair shop in Portland, Oregon for over 25 years, and they don’t want to lose valuable employees. That’s why Jim has always provided health insurance to his employees. But in the last ten years, Jim has been forced to contend with skyrocketing premium increases, with premiums making up over 20 percent of his payroll. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, Jim and small business owners like him are getting immediate relief. The health reform law provides tax credits for small businesses that offer employees health insurance. Jim estimates that the tax credits will save him over $10,000.
As per the other guests, the White House invited Houser as an example to others. He is a small businessman who has struggled to provide his employees health insurance. Twenty percent of payroll to health insurance? That is onerous, by any accounting, and the Affordable Care Act eased that paid via the tax credits for small businesses. Houser is an example both of decent action by an employer and of how the ACA makes it easier for small business owners to act honorably and ethically.
Business owners Jim Houser and Elizabeth Dally spent 26 years greening their Southeast Portland auto repair shop, Hawthorne Auto Clinic, and have gone to great lengths to document their efforts.
The irony of running a green business in an industry demonized as one of the world’s biggest polluters isn’t lost on Jim Houser. He’s even joked that he fixes “gas-guzzling, carbon monoxide-spewing hunks of metal.” But the couple’s quest to go green is no laughing matter. Houser and Dally have left no aspect of their 5,000-square-foot Hawthorne District repair shop unreformed, from using locally re-refined motor oil and anti-freeze to shuttling customers around in an electric hybrid car to buying carbon offsets
Rafter held Houser and Dally up as an example of substantive and serious ‘sustainability’ practices in the face of an increasing trend toward greenwashing ‘seals of approval’ that can mask far from sustainable activities.
Note that these practices have tangible payoffs that go beyond the Clinic’s own carbon footprint and help in the bottom line:
The repair shop provides showers and bicycle racks for employees who ride to work and TriMet passes for bus riders. They’ve put four mechanics through training to work on hybrids and provided other training opportunities — one reason many on their crew have worked there a decade or longer.
Replacing and training an employee is costly. More experienced mechanics, with broader skills, contribute to winning and keeping clients. While ‘greening’ might help reduce utility costs, the direct business payoff might be far greater in terms of reduced employee costs due to reduced turnover and increased customer loyalty (e.g., increased business with lower advertising costs). In other words, Houser and Dally might just be making green by being/going Green.
The Clinic’s ‘sustainable’ practices include:
Many worn parts removed from customer’s vehicles are recovered as cores for re-manufacturing.
Oil filters are drained to reclaim the used oil and then recycled for their metal content.
Used motor oil is collected for recycling and energy recovery.
Re-refined motor oil, which meets the same quality standards as new oil but saves energy in the refining process, is offered to customers.
Bulk anti-freeze is purchased to avoid wasteful plastic containers. but work to get such practices more widely adopted along with the good practices in their industry more widely understood.
The Clinic has received recognition for its workCardboard, paper boxes, and scrap paper, as well as metal parts, batteries and fluids removed from vehicles during repairs, are recycled.
“Auto shops have a reputation as being polluters,” says Jim. “We want to correct that image. Many shops are doing work, like us, to properly handle environmental issues.”
In the State of the Union address, President Obama referred back to President Kennedy’s call for America to go to the moon.
Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik¸ we had no idea how we’d beat them to the moon. The science wasn’t there yet. NASA didn’t even exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn’t just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.
This is our generation’s Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race.
Reading … and rereading … the address, I have a simply question: Why? Why is “this our generation’s Sputnik moment”?
In paragraphs before these, the President speaks to “sustaining the American dream” and American innovation. He speaks to other nations investment in education and science and the increasingly fierce economic competition around the world.
Meanwhile, nations like China and India realized that with some changes of their own, they could compete in this new world. And so they started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science. They’re investing in research and new technologies. Just recently, China became home to the world’s largest private solar research facility, and the world’s fastest computer.
So yes, the world has changed. The competition for jobs is real. But this shouldn’t discourage us. It should challenge us.
So, is our “Sputnik moment” that we are economically and intellectually threatened to the point where we risk catastrophe? The President’s next words seem to belie this:
Remember – for all the hits we’ve taken these last few years, for all the naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. No workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs. We are home to the world’s best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any other place on Earth.
That doesn’t sound like the need to create a massive national response to a perceived existential threat. Yet, what were the words that immediately preceded the Sputnik moment comments?
Just think of all the good jobs – from manufacturing to retail – that have come from those breakthroughs.
Thus, this is about jobs? Our “Sputnik moment” is the need to get Americans back to work?
We’re issuing a challenge. We’re telling America’s scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we’ll fund the Apollo Projects of our time.
And it comes back to jobs:
Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they’re selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all – and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.
Okay, we need to invest in clean energy research and development so that we can have “clean energy jobs”?
Is that the reason for investing in “clean energy”? That our Sputnik moment is the need to create jobs in a competitive international landscape?
And, the truth is simple: other nations are cleaning America’s clock when it comes to moving out with clean energy opportunities. America, which was once the global leader in wind and solar and rail and …, trails other nations in investments in terms of research, development, and deployment.
The 21st century, however, does not require a clean-energy revolution first and foremost as a job creation path. This is a very real element of the opportunity but this is not the reason.
There are fundamental truths which the President chose not to engage … the fundamental truths that should be the clarion call to arms for a clean-energy revolution … fundamental truths that should drive a Sputnik moment:
Peak Oil: The era of cheap and easy oil almost certainly is nearing an end. In the face of growing demand and tightening (and, likely, falling) supply, oil prices will inexorably grow over time but with severe price fluctuations. The ever-increasing price, the fluctuating prices, and the tighter supply leading to growing shortages (think gas lines of oil crises …) will cause increasingly severe economic turmoil. This can threaten our prosperity, our food supply, and … The United States has not seriously addressed our, as George W Bush put it, “oil addiction” even as President after President from Richard Nixon to the President has called for ending our reliance on foreign oil. With each day that passes, our situation becomes more dire and “Drill, Baby, Drill” is not a solution.
Climate Change: From devastating Russian fires, to record heat temperatures in country after country, to Pakistani and Australian floods, to disrupting American agricultural production, to a very warm Arctic (in part because much of Europe and the United States have gotten Arctic chills — at this moment), to melting glaciers around the world, to … humanity is putting an ever-increasingly heavy thumb on the planetary balance. Despite anti-science screaming distorting the discussion, the reality of climate disruption due to human activity is not some loony hypothesis but Scientific Theory just as is the Theory of Gravity. We need to change our fossil-foolish ways (and other things …), rapidly, or face catastrophe.
As the Sputnik flew overhead, many of America’s youth were sent under their desks as they would be for bomb drills. The Sputnik — combined with atomic weapons to put on intercontinental missiles — represented an existential threat to the American people. The call to go to the moon, President Kennedy’s call for leadership, responded to and built on America’s perception of this threat to our very existence.
Both Peak Oil and Climate Change represent not just plausible, but increasingly substantive potential existential threats for America and the American people. Yet, neither merited mention last evening.
Why does America (and the globe) face a Sputnik moment? Because there are real threats out there. Threats to our very existence. Menaces with substance that will, if we do not address them, will almost certainly overwhelm us and cause ever-increasingly severe devastation. Threats that we can and must respond to and surmount. And, we can address both with the same policies and approaches — while also creating tremendous clean energy job opportunities. We face a stark choice: do nothing and face catastrophe or act with clarity and alacrity and create prosperity. Address, seriously, peak oil and climate change or …
Yes, we do face a Sputnik moment — even if the President didn’t explain why.
The good news: Barack Obama delivered a powerful State of the Union speech advocating an aggressive clean energy strategy (text here). And he acknowledged a fundamental truth: advances in clean energy “will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they’re selling.” Research and development by itself is ineffectual — hence the need for the standard.
The bad news: The President could not bring himself to utter the words “climate change” or “global warming.” These omissions were depressingly predictable and thus, predictably, depressing to climate hawks.
When it comes to innovation, Americans don’t take a back seat to anyone – and we certainly won’t start now. From wind power to nuclear reactors to high speed rail, China and other countries are moving aggressively to capture the lead. Given that challenge, and given the enormous economic opportunities in clean energy, it’s time for America to do what we do best: innovate. As President Obama has said, we should not, cannot, and will not play for second place.”
Sadly, too many would argue “Roads, Baby, Roads” (to be powered by vehicles fueled due to “Drill, Baby, Drill”?).
Pete Ruane, president of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, said the report underscores the need for Congress to move ahead on the six-year transportation funding reauthorization bill that has been stalled for more than a year.
“The report makes one thing crystal clear,” Ruane said. “The failure of elected leaders at all levels of government to adequately invest in transportation improvements is taking an alarming toll on American families and businesses. If members of Congress had to sit in mind-numbing congestion every day like their constituents, they might have a greater sense of urgency in passing the 15-month-overdue transportation bill.”
Should it surprise us that roadbuilders find that new roads are the only answer? And, that they argue for rapid movement on funding for new roads?
How about another perspective?
The American Public Transportation Association also urged Congress to act.
“There is no doubt that expanding public transportation use is the key to reducing traffic congestion,” said William Millar, the association’s president. “Congress needs to move on passing a well-funded, multi-year surface transportation authorization bill. Each passing day means a delay in addressing congestion problems which impact individual and undermine business productivity.”
To be clear, from its very first days, I’ve been a supporter of the DC Metro system (along with a fan of urban transit globally). That early fandom is now reinforced by a near daily commute via the rail. And, it is clear that the DC Metro has tremendous benefits for those who don’t ride it: estimated at 36 million fewer commuting hours per year due to reduced congestion valued at $766 million along with another $75 million or so in saved gasoline. (E.g., ‘external values just for commuters of some $850 million per year, far (FAR) less than any public transit ‘subsidy’.) Even as improved public transit is a critical element of a more efficient transportation network that brings many other benefits, public transport is “the” answer or even “the key to reducing traffic congestion”.
Perhaps the most dismaying projection came from the authoritative voice of one of the study authors:
“Clearly, in any growing area – and D.C. has continued to grow – you need to build more capacity,” Tim Lomax, the TTI researcher who co-wrote the report. “You can do little things like stagger work hours, fix traffic-light timing and clear wrecks faster, but in the end, there’s a need for more capacity.”
Is capacity — whether roads and/or (better option) transit — the only answer to the challenges of traffic?
The simple and true answer: no.
With close to zero investment, congestion could rapidly fall with lowered pollution and improved productivity. Alternative work schedules and alternative work arrangements are a starting point.
While, nationwide, “approximately 45 percent of American workers are employed in sectors where a five-day workweek is not inherently necessary.” That percentage is even higher in Washington. If that number is 50%, putting them on a 4 day workweek (10 hour days) would cut commuter traffic by 10 percent. As Whitney Angell Leonard pointed out in Five Alternatives that Make More Sense than Offshore Oil,
traffic delays are reduced by 10 percent for every 3 percent of commuters who stay home one day a week, ultimately saving everyone more time, fuel and money.
Telecommuting offers tremendous potential to cut into the traffic even more. If just six percent of DC-area workers telecommuted half the time, that would meet the three percent threshhold — five days per week.
Additionally, enabling expanded flextime would add yet another path toward carving into the DC-area gridlock.
These three — easily and cheaply implemented — adjustments to work patterns would have greater impact on reducing congestion than any potential transit or traditional road investments over the coming decade or more.
These, of course, are only a taste of effective paths to reduced congestion. Others include:
Traffic management improvements such as traffic circles, improved lighting timing, etc …
Taking steps to ease, enable, and encourage increased use of bicycles (and other ‘alternative’ transit) for commuting and other transportation needs. (Okay, a ‘capacity’ path: networking the area with greenways.)
Long-term ameliorative paths such as ‘smart growth’ (zoning to foster mixed use neighborhoods) and house financing that encourages people to live closer to work and other ‘destinations’ (addressing location efficiency; see here (pdf) on location efficiency as well)
While I strongly support increased public transit (including the new line under construction to Tyson’s Corner and beyond), one thing is clear: increased capacity (especially not increased road capacity) is not the answer to DC’s congestion problems. Highly cost-effective paths exist to reduce congestion, improve productivity, save people money (and time), improve the community, reduce local pollution, cut into America’s oil dependency, and help reduce America’s contribution to global warming.
Comments Off on DC streets most clogged in nation: what can we do?Tags:Energy
The ability for utilities to profit from their energy efficiency programs provides strong motivation to create, support, and deliver successful programs …
My initial reaction: ‘duh … so, what else is new?’
From the ACEEE report,
there is wide agree among the industry experts that we interviewed that shareholder incentives influence utility decision-making
Okay, there should be a rash of shareholder lawsuits if the “industry experts” were to argue that “shareholder incentives” didn’t “influence utility decision-making”. In other words, yet again, ‘duh …’
That reaction, of course, did a form of disservice to the report and the importance of this message. The truth is quite simple: too many utilities’ financial structures undermine the ability to make meaningful progress in achieving a more prosperous energy-efficiency economy.
For most of America’s utilities there is, in essence, a rather simple calculation for profit that is termed ‘the throughput model’: more energy usage translates to greater revenue streams. And, for most, greater revenue translates into increased profits. As long as a utility operates with this paradigm, serious attention to fostering energy efficiency actual operates to the detriment of shareholder value.
One of the key paths around this is termed “profit decoupling” which separates the transmission and distribution (T&D) system from the energy use for profit decision-making. In essence, the rate commission will provide a specific revenue stream for the T&D provider to ensure services to their customers. If it is less expensive (more efficient) to build more power lines and deliver more power in response to customer demand, then that will be more profitable for the utility. If, on the other hand, it will be more efficient to foster greater energy efficiency and avoid building more transmission lines (and transformers and …), then that will be more profitable for the utility.
Profit decoupling decouples profit from the ‘throughput model’.
What ACEEE has documented is that this works. If the shareholders’ best interests are best served by maximizing the number of delivered kilowatt hours, then the utility will serve those interests and suboptimize energy efficiency. If, however, the shareholder interests are best served through investing to cut demand, expect the utility to become efficiency pushers.
Not surprisingly to me … but important to document with verifiable research … is that incentivized utilities are actually blowing through the energy efficiency targets. As the authors put it,
the record indicates that when these targets have been established, utilities have tended, thus far, to consistently meet or exceed them.
Setting serious targets — with incentives to meeting them — has led to aggressive and innovative practices that lead utilities “to consistently meet or exceed” those targets. And, in the process, to provide greater return to their shareholders while lowering their customers’ bills.
And, they say you can’t have your cake and eat it too …
Going back to the opening title, “Duh …” The ACEEE has done a service in documenting what should simply have been self-evident to all. And, well, ‘duh’ … this is good policy that merits being the law of the land across the entire nation rather than in just a few markets.
The Spending Reduction Act of 2011 reduces federal spending by $2.5 trillion over ten years. The bill will specifically hold FY 2011 non-security discretionary spending to FY 08 levels, hold non-defense discretionary spending to FY 06 levels thereafter for the rest of the ten-year budget window (the same level as in effect during the last year of GOP control of the Congress), and include more than 100 other program eliminations or savings proposals, consisting of proposals from the RSC Sunset Caucus, YouCut, or the RSC budget.
Putting aside the simple question as to whether their numbers actually add up to the claimed savings (they don’t, when full impacts are considered) and ignoring systems impacts (which would significantly cut savings), this list demonstrates more allegiance to scoring political points than providing serious paths to addressing the nation’s challenges and a determination to ignore short and long-term societal impacts of their actions.
In addition, the ideological driving of these cuts seems to come with an utter disregard for a simple question that should be at the heart of Congressional action: does a legislative act and/or expenditure work for the better interests of the American people?
Too many of these cuts are to cost effective programs that are helping with social stability and increasing the nations (and Americans’) economic prospects and overall security.
For example, there is this proposed cut:
Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.
Yes, let’s kill that horrid DOE system for giving money to states to help weatherize poor people’s homes to make them more energy efficient and reduce their energy costs (and, well, their pollution). Simply put, study and after study of weatherization programs come to the conclusion (based on significant analysis of much data) that these are cost effective programs to help these low(er)-income households. Of course, that $530 million pays for itself many times over in terms of reduced energy costs and reduced external benefits (such as reduced pollution loads reducing health problems). And, among other things, these programs lead to reduced demand on other government services and — potentially — even might foster lower crime rates due to more financially (and otherwise) secure households. Sigh, weatherization ends up reducing demand for fossil-foolish industries’ products (whether heating oil or coal-fired electricity). They are also one of the tools for using taxpayer resources for strengthening the economic position of the weakest in our society. What does the Senseless Retrenching Act propose? Fossil-foolish moves to exacerbate the economic disparities in the United States.
Not surprisingly, the Department of Energy is a particular target for the Senseless Retrenching Act’s mania for undermining the prospects for America’s future security and prosperity. Proposed cuts include:
Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.
FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.
Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.
That last, of course, ignores the huge payback that the Energy Star Program provides for the American people. Decades ago, the average U.S. refrigerator gobbled up nearly 2000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year. And, the prognosis was that this number would go up year after year, inexorably. Enter a public-private partnership/working arrangement to set standards and this growth started to get reversed. And, after multiple cycles of revisiting this, American refrigerators (including those ice makers, cold water, quieter motors, etc …) use about 500 kilowatt hours of electricity per year. At the average of 10 cents per kWh, that is $150 per year lower cost for that much higher quality refrigerator. And, by the way, in real terms, the cost to buy the refrigerator hasn’t increased. Of course, refrigerators aren’t the only product touched by the Energy Star program. That “$52 million annual savings” to the Federal budget via cutting the Energy Star program could well lead to $billions (or $10s of billions) of additional costs to American consumers (in many cases, American homeowners … American taxpayers … American citizens).
Going through their list of ‘100 cuts’, one has to wonder whether the RSC has ever heard the phrase: ‘penny wise, pound foolish’.
I’ve been a supporter of the DC Metro system (along with a fan of urban transit globally). That early fandom is now reinforced by a near daily commute via the rail. And, it is clear that 
such as traffic circles, improved lighting timing, etc …