I am a resident of Kansas and a owner of a 1968-model home in Lawrence, Kansas. A few months ago, I learned about a great program in the newspaper and by word of mouth, and began participating in it. The Efficiency Kansas program was initiated in 2009 and was funded by $38 mill of DOE money. The money is supposed to be spent by April 1, 2012, and the purpose of the funding was to allow homeowners in Kansas to weatherize their homes, improve the energy efficiency and reduce the overall cost of heating and cooling. As a homeowner, I took advantage of the program by following the first step; to hire an energy auditor to do an inspection of my home. One incentive for participation was that the audit, worth $600-700 was only $100, because a grant has been provided to cover the difference.
We paid Licenced auditor, Robert Coffman of Airtight Home Energy Audits, who has told me that the program took a while to gain momentum, partly because it sounds "too good to be true." This is a link to a PDF file of all of the auditors in Kansas who are participating in the program: www.efficiencykansas.com/document.fetcher.php?document_id=60
Mr. Coffman has verbally expressed that our energy savings would pay for the cost of the loan we would receive through the Effeciency Kansas Program. These loans were to be low to zero interest loans and would be integrated with our energy bills so that there would be little impact on our finances. Mr. Coffman's small business has been overwhelmed recently by requests by homeowners to participate, and he has also been too busy meeting with government entities to write up our report, so we have not been able to collect all of the information we need in order to move on to the next step.
Mr. Coffman also told me that because the program was until recently largely unknown, private contractors were working slowly to complete the improvements, and were often over-bidding because the work does not consist of large remodeling jobs, but involves less glamorous jobs like caulking and insulation. Therefore, he started to hire his own contractors and was in the throes of training new employees, buying new computers to manage his business, and greatly expanding his small business. Then the the Kansas Energy Office informed energy auditors and utility companies on July 20 that $22 million in the loan program was being diverted to fund three renewable energy projects overseen by the Kansas Department of Commerce. Their reasoning was that not all of the money is slated to be spent by the 2012 deadline. I have never heard of any grant deadline being rescinded in such a way. Money promised to programs should be used for the programs until the deadline is reached. And if the program is successful and not all of the money is spent, perhaps the deadline should be extended. Thousands of residents of Kansas could benefit from this program, along with all of the contractors and auditors who are doing the work, and most of all, energy conservation would be tangible to the individual and not allocated to corporations. Governor Sam Brownback has made a point during his administration to put more emphasis on corporations, and this is one example.
According the the Lawrence Journal World on Aug 9, "The funds will be diverted to other projects which still need to receive final approval from the DOE, include a biomethane production facility at an ethanol plant in Oakley, money to upgrade equipment used to harvest and transport plants used to make bioenergy, and converting 38 retail gas stations in the Wichita area so they can carry fuels with a higher percentage of ethanol." The primary source of the ethanol will be corn, and I am opposed to the use of corn to produce ethanol because it costs more energy to produce corn ethanol than is available in the ethanol product. Corn production is also subsidized by the government, monopolized by Monsanto Corporation, and generally inconsistent with any logical energy-saving plan.
This summer, our family has spent around $175 per month to keep our home cooled to 82 degrees F, and our air conditioner rarely paused. In the winter, we supplement with a wood-burning stove, but still pay high costs for heating. It is a fact that if we were able to better weatherize our home, we would have more affordable heating and cooling bills.
One more point that you should consider is that these audits and home improvements are included in the "Take Charge Challenge." This is a friendly competition between cities in Kansas, which encourages residents and businesses to improve the efficiency of their buildings. According to the website: "The Climate and Energy Project (CEP), in partnership with the Kansas Energy Office (KEO), is hosting the Take Charge! Challenge from January through September 2011. The KEO, a division of the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC), provided $1 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds to implement this year’s Take Charge! Challenge." Removal of the funding for the Efficiency Kansas program really puts into question how that money can be appropriated as well. Please take a look at this program on their website, http://www.takechargekansas.org/Site_Data/Sub_Pages/Home.php. If you click on "How are standings calculated?" you will see that the Efficiency Kansas program is listed as the most important category for consideration in allocation of the awards.
Please thoughtfully consider my complaint about the misuse of the DOE funds by the State of Kansas.
Most sincerely
Angela M. Babbit
No comments:
Post a Comment