1. Gwen Murtha
PUAD 641
The Bipartisan Energy Savings Performance Caucus
The history of the bipartisan Energy Savings Performance Caucus began in 2011 and
continues into the present day. The story is a rare one that includes Republicans, Democrats, and
a lobbying group working together on a project that isn’t necessary to prevent the collapse of the
government. Despite this unique show of bipartisanship, the caucus is an example of political
and budgetary cunning. While the politicians and lobbyists most likely have the best interests of
the country in mind, they designed the timing and nature of the caucus for their political benefit.
The caucus is presented in such a way as to show its members as working for job creation.
In 2011, President Obama allowed federal agencies to use up to two billion dollars on
contracts for energy savings. His goal was to cut energy costs, thus saving money and energy.
This would be accomplished by implementing Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs)
and Utility Energy Service Contracts (UESCs). These contracts would be awarded to private
firms, who would then be reimbursed by receiving a portion of the savings accrued over a period
of twenty-five years (Gardner, 02/22/2013). By spending two billion, the Energy Department
estimated the nation would save twenty billion (Colman, 12/5/2012).
However, few contracts were ever awarded and most of the two billion dollars went
unspent.
Then came the Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), a non-profit dedicated to world-wide
energy efficiency. As the name suggests, the organization is in favor of the ESPCs and the
UESCs, and it has the power to do something about it. The Honorary Chair is Senator Mark
Warner (D). The Honorary Vice-Chairs include Senator Susan Collins (R), Senator Chris Coons

2. (D), Senator Lisa Murkowski (R), Senator Rob Portman (R), Senator Mark Pryor (D), Senator
Jeanne Shaheen (D), Senator Mark Udall (D), Senator Ron Wyden (D), Representative Michael
Burgess (R), Representative Ralph Hall (R), Representative Steve Israel (D), Representative
Adam Kinzinger (R), Representative Edward Markey (D), Representative Paul Tonko (D), and
Representative Peter Welch (D) (Alliance to Save Energy, Board of Directors). These elected
officials came from both parties, giving the ASE a foot in both camps.
In addition to its impressive collection of Senators and Congressmen, the ASE is
associated with over 140 organizations. It is reasonable to say that this is an extremely powerful
interest group that is good about mobilizing support (Rubin, pg 153). However, after the 2012
election and the defeat of several Republican officials, the ASE found itself looking for new
allies. It’s Legislative Director, Rob Mosher, started hunting for new decision makers interested
in the ASE’s mission.
He found Cory Gardner. A Republican Congressman from Colorado, Gardner was
elected to Congress in 2010, and re-elected in 2012 (Peter Welch, United States Congressman).
Frustrated with the snail-like pace of the government when it came to awarding the energy
efficiency contracts, he decided to do something about it. He was serving on the House
Committee of Energy and Commerce with Representative Welch and both were involved with
the ASE (Gardner, 04/15/2013). Together, they recruited ten of their colleagues, Representative
Earl Blumenauer (D), Representative Charles Rangel (D), Representative Lee Terry (R),
Representative Joe Wilson (R), Representative Paul Gosar (R), Representative Charlie Dent (R),
Representative Mike Michaud (D), Representative Ron Kind (D) and Delegate Madeleine
Bordallo of Guam (D) (Colman, 12/05/2012). They formed the bipartisan Energy Savings
Performance Caucus. The focus of the caucus is on convincing federal agencies to use the energy

3. saving contracts. The contracts were presented as a no-cost solution and as a vehicle for job
creation (Colman, 11/23/2012).
As with anything involving public money, there are several opinions related to the
endeavor. While no individuals or organizations have stated their opposition to the caucus or its
goals, members still face many challenges. Chief among these is the financial reality of the
times. This impacts the caucus in two ways. First, new funding for energy efficiency upgrades
may be difficult to secure, largely due to Republican obstinacy. House Republicans have refused
to discuss how to reduce carbon emissions or tackle the issue of climate change. Fifty-three
attempts to pass legislation related to climate change were blocked by the GOP. Representative
Welch wrote a letter co-signed by several of his colleagues challenging the Republican members
of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to a debate on the House floor (Coriell,
04/11/2013).
In contrast we are not aware of any Republican member who has
spoken on the House floor about the dangers of climate change or
the need to reduce emissions and prepare for the impacts. In fact,
no Republican member of the House has ever said the words
“climate change” on the House floor (Welch).
The second way our financial stress threatens the success of the caucus is that money
already set aside for the programs might disappear. Financing for programs related to energy
efficiency upgrades could be axed when Congress tries to reform the tax code. According to
Mosher, sequester means over eight percent in cuts to those programs. Representative Gardner
admits that convincing his party to support new standards for energy efficiency is an uphill battle
(Colman, 11/23/2012).

4. When sequester occurred, the Office of Management and Budgeting estimated the
Environmental Protection Agency saw cuts that totaled $716 million. Cuts to the Department of
Energy totaled $148 million (Appliance Magazine, 04/10/2013). Energy efficiency, while widely
acknowledged to be a good idea, is considered an example of discretionary spending. When the
cuts come, discretionary spending will be the first to go. However, the damage is put into
perspective by the fact that even after sequester the DOE would receive a billion dollars more
than it spent in 2008. Critics will argue that “when everything is a priority, nothing is a priority
(Styles, 03/01/2013).” The minimum amount of damage, combined with the fact that it is mostly
applied to discretionary funds, will be the rallying cry of opponents to energy efficiency.
Despite the financial uncertainty, the caucus has enjoyed the support of several
stakeholders. Obviously, members of both parties support energy efficiency and the caucus has
bipartisan support. Additionally, the caucus also enjoys industry support. The Vice President of
Energy and Resources Policy at the National Association of Manufactures, Ross Eisenberg, said:
“The National Association of Manufactures supports
policies to enhance private sector investment in public building
efficiency improvement projects, and performance contracting is at
the very top of that list. Performance contracts, such as ESPCs and
UESCs, are extremely valuable tools that make federal buildings
more efficient with no upfront taxpayer cost. They should be the
very first option taken by agencies, yet they are perpetually
underutilized. The NAM is excited that Congress is taking a more
active role to increase the use of performance contracting and
make federal buildings more efficient” (Peter Welch,
Congressional Website).
Others have voiced their support, including the President of ASE, Kateri Callahan, and
Bill Kovacs, Senior Vice President at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Kovacs is on record

5. saying the contracts, “…are a commonsense approach to bring energy savings to the federal
government” (Colman, 12/05/2012).
The Department of Energy is also working to help the caucus achieve its goals. On March
28, 2013, the DOE placed a notice on the Federal Register. It requested comments and
suggestions related to improving the ESPCs. The DOE set up the Federal Energy Management
Program (FEMP) to administer the ESPCs and the UESCs. The department is currently asking
the public for ideas concerning how the contracts are awarded. The program manager, Timothy
Unruh, has asked for ideas and information regarding the time difference between when an
agency issues an Request for Proposal (RFP), and when it makes an award; ways to improve the
contracts so as to best benefit the federal government; how to improve the measuring techniques
and methods to ensure the greatest possible energy savings; how to encourage the use of new or
underutilized technologies; and how to streamline the programs for smaller facilities (Federal
Register). The DOE is obviously invested in these contracts and wants the caucus to succeed.
Given its ties to the caucus and its goal of improving energy efficiency, it comes as no
surprise that ASE is in favor of the caucus. The organization has a page on its website dedicated
to explaining how sequester will affect energy efficiency programs. It explains in detail how
energy efficiency creates jobs. The webpage ends with a quote from Mosher, vowing to work
with Congress to maintain current levels of funding to programs (Ospina, 12/11/2012).
The most influential political player who supports the caucus is the President. In his State
of the Union speech, Mr. Obama stated his goal to improve America’s energy efficiency.
“…Let’s cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses over the next 20 years,”
(Plumer, 02/13/2013).

6. The caucus’ greatest champions are its founders. Representatives Welch and Gardner are
clearly excited about their project and the benefits it could potentially bring to America. Gardner
is especially proud of his work. “I feel it’s my task to really open people’s eyes up to energy
conservation and energy savings… I really believe Republicans deep down are conservationists
and that this is a real fit (Colman, 11/23/2012).” He is dismissive of the challenge of raising and
maintaining funding. “That’s the benefit of what we’re doing because we’re not talking about
something that’s going to require major appropriation,” he said. “You know, we’re not talking
about financing a tax credit. … This is savings to the taxpayer with no cost to them (Goode,
12/07/2012).”
The establishment of the Energy Savings Performance Caucus and its goal to convince
federal agencies to use the ESPCs and UESCs relates to budgeting in several ways. First, it is
presented as being cost effective necessary for economic growth. The founding members have
repeatedly said that the contracts will pay for themselves and will create jobs. However, the fact
that contractors are used could obscure the true cost of the programs, the second connection to
budgeting. Third, there is the political aspect to consider. Representative Gardner was re-elected
prior to forming the caucus. He was in a position to tackle a potentially controversial topic
without fear of losing his job. Finally, there is the fact that there are many demands for limited
resources. The federal budget simply cannot support every decision maker’s every project. At
some point a decision must be made about what to fund.
The ESPCs and the UESCs were presented as a no-cost solution and as a vehicle for job
creation. Welch has praised the contracts as a way to pull the economy out of its slump and put
Americans back to work. “The work that has to be done is all local contractors, many of whom
are out of work because of the housing slump. They’ve got the skills, and they need the work”

7. (Colman, 12/05/2012). The issue of energy efficiency contracts is presented as a politically
valuable priority (Rubin, pg. 147). Both the ASE and the politicians have used language that
presents their projects as job creating and money saving. Who in either party would vote against
something that could create jobs? The topic becomes far less controversial when the various
audiences are painted a picture of hundreds of contractors happily at work on upgrades that will
save the taxpayer billions. Nobody, Republican or Democrat is going to vote against something
that could put people back to work.
However, contracts can be tricky. Here, the private sector companies that were awarded
the contracts would get paid based on a portion of the money saved due to their renovations over
a period of twenty-five years. That leaves a great deal of room for accounting errors and fraud.
There is no information on how that money will be included in the budget. Will the amount
awarded to the companies be included every year, or will it only be added in the budget of the
twenty-fifth year? Will the agencies lump all the contracts together? Will the companies need
money for start-up costs? After all, money received in twenty-five years will not pay the salary
of the worker who performs the renovations today. Using contractors might create jobs, but there
will have to be significant oversight. The real cost of the contracts can be obscured. The RFPs
will need to be open to all contractors (Rubin, pg. 177-178).
The political cycle also had an effect on the Energy Savings Performance Caucus.
Gardner was elected into office in 2010 and re-elected in 2012. He was in a good position to
champion a politically tricky topic, having just been reelected. Welch was also reelected in 2012.
If there was a contracting scandal or if something happened to sour the public to the goals of the
caucus, there would be plenty of time for a political comeback, or to shift the blame (Forsythe,
51).

8. Finally, the caucus itself is evidence of the fact that political actors have many demands
and not enough revenue to meet them (Rubin, pg. 284). Two billion dollars is a lot of money that
could be spent on job training, unemployment benefits, or simply to lower the deficit. Energy
efficiency renovations may create new jobs, but so could improving the nation’s infrastructure.
Welch, Gardner and the ASE are a few among many actors vying for funding for their special
projects. At some point a decision will be made about what programs to keep and which to cut.
Energy efficiency contracts may not see 2014.
In conclusion, the bipartisan Energy Savings Performance Caucus is an exciting
development for multiple reasons. It shows that, despite all evidence to the contrary, it is possible
for the parties to work together without the threat of a looming deadline such as the debt ceiling
or sequester. It shows a willingness in Congress to push federal agencies towards energy
efficiency. This is fantastic for environmentalists and other stakeholders in the clean energy
sector, but it does present some budgetary challenges.
As the caucus continues to push federal agencies to use the contracts it should be mindful
of the financial stress the nation is under. Few politicians are going to say that energy efficiency
is a bad idea. What they will say is that it is expensive and we should make the decision to invest
elsewhere. The idea of energy efficiency enjoys bipartisan support and the support of the
President. They also have a powerful partner in the Alliance to Save Energy. If they can leverage
the political power of these allies, continue presenting the contracts as sources of job creation,
and structure the contracts in such a way as to lower the possibility of fraud and scandal, the
caucus has a good chance of successfully meeting its goals.

9. Works Cited
"Board of Directors." Alliance to Save Energy. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
<http://www.ase.org/about-us/our-board-directors>.
Colman, Zack. "Energy Efficiency Lobby Hunts for New Allies among Republican Lawmakers."
The Hill. N.p., 23 Nov. 2012. Web. 15 Apr. 2013. <http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-
wire/269127-energy-efficiency-lobby-hunts-for-new-allies-in-gop>.
Colman, Zack. "Lawmakers Launch Bipartisan Energy-savings Caucus." The Hill. N.p., 05 Dec.
2012. Web. 15 Apr. 2013. <http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/271281-lawmakers-launch-
bipartisan-energy-savings-caucus>.
Coriell, Scott. "Welch and House Colleagues Challenge Republicans to Debate Climate Change
on House Floor." VTDigger. N.p., 11 Apr. 2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
"Energy Savings Performance Contracts." Federal Register. United States Federal Register, 03
Apr. 2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2013. <https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/04/03/2013-
07709/energy-savings-performance-contracts>.
Forsythe, Dall W. Memos to the Governor. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown UP, 2004. Print.
Gardner, Cory. "Need for Greater Energy Efficiency Is Now." North Colorado Business Report.
N.p., 22 Feb. 2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
<http://www.ncbr.com/article/20130222/EDITION0806/130229977>.
Goode, Darren. "Cory Gardner, Peter Welch Form Bipartisan Energy Efficiency Caucus."
POLITICO. N.p., 07 Dec. 2012. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
<http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/gardner-welch-form-bipartisan-energy-efficiency-
caucus-in-congress-84707_Page2.html>.
Plumer, Brad. "Obama Wants to Double U.S. Energy Efficiency by 2030. Is That Possible?"
Washington Post. N.p., 13 Feb. 2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/13/obama-wants-to-double-u-s-
energy-efficiency-by-2030-how-is-that-possible/>.
Rubin, Irene. The Politics of Public Budgeting: Getting and Spending, Borrowing and
Balancing. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1990. Print.
"Sequester Cuts to EPA and DOE." ApplianceMagazine. N.p., 10 Apr. 2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
<http://www.appliancemagazine.com/news.php?article=1666414>.s

10. Styles, Geoffrey. "Energy and the Federal Budget Sequester." The Energy Collective. N.p., 01
Mar. 2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2013. <http://theenergycollective.com/geoffrey-styles/193406/energy-
and-federal-budget-sequester>.
Welch, Peter. "Welch Launches Statewide House Energy and Commerce Tour; Energy
Efficiency Is Focus of Rutland Stop." Congressman Peter Welch. United States House of
Representatives, 07 Jan. 2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
<http://www.welch.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2251:welch-
launches-statewide-house-energy-and-commerce-committee-tour-energy-efficiency-is-focus-of-
rutland-stop&catid=42:2013-press-releases>.