Bush Budget Puts Weatherization in the Cold

February 6, 2008 RSS Feed Print

In light of the focus in Washington on doling out economic stimulus money, it is worth noting the money that the Bush administration is proposing to take out of low-income households this year by ending the 32-year-old federal weatherization program.

The just-released Department of Energy $25 billion budget plan, while increasing 4.7 percent over the current fiscal year, would zero out the $220 million program, which has been weatherizing about 100,000 homes across the country each year. The administration says the reason for the cut is to focus the agency's energy efficiency office "on its core mission of advanced energy efficiency and renewable energy [research and development]."

While future advances are vital, there's an energy affordability issue in a lot of homes in the present. The DOE's own research shows that low-income households are paying 13 percent of their income for energy (compared with less than 3 percent for the average U.S. household).

The state of Oregon recently did a study on the economic impact of weatherization and found that for every $1 spent on the program, weatherization returned $1.16 in economic dividends to the community, by increasing local jobs, reducing uncollectible utility bills, and improving the housing stock. In addition, and even more important, every $1 spent on weatherization saves $1.53 in energy bills.

Put another way, if the program spent $500 on improving a household's insulation, sealing holes in the wall and foundation, wrapping air ducts, and repairing an inefficient water heater, that would mean $765 in reduced energy bills for that home. Almost like getting a tax rebate! Except now imagine that that is how much money is being taken away from the families that are having the most trouble paying for energy.

Tags:
federal budget,
Department of Energy,
budget cuts,
energy,
energy policy and climate change

Reader Comments Read all comments (3)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I seriously doubt that "dubbya" has ever felt the cold - except the kind one might feel while skiing downhill.

I am a former recipient and am now a manager of a Weatherization Assistance Program in Utah. As such I can say that I personally believe this was one of 3 programs initiated by our federal government in the 60's that has played a vital role in helping me to bring myself and my family out of poverty and to a point where I am able to offer others the same opportunity for a hand up.

One thing many people are not aware of is that it is a "one-time-per-address" program. Thus, people are not going to return year after year for another dip into the federal pot of money for more help. The work done on homes is intended to last for many years, and paired with some conservation education provided to the recipients should help them to reduce their annual energy usage by as much as 30%. This is significant savings in a household where an average family of four is living on less than $2208.00 per month. Just think of all the "extras" the family could then afford - rent, clothing, even food!

I pray there will be enough public outcry against cutting this program that our elected officials will defeat such an irrational attempt to move the money into future "possibilities". Yes, we need to do something about our environment. Yes, we need to find and develop renewable sources of energy. But what we do NOT need to do is freeze, roast or starve the disabled, elderly and low-income population of our country who are living in the here and now.

Laura Reilly of UT 12:16PM February 23, 2008

I wonder if Bush has ever been cold with no money to buy oil. Shame on Bush.

Terry of NC 3:08PM February 12, 2008

And yet President Bush has completely removed Weatherization from his budget proposal. My issue is the lack of concern for those who can't afford to make their home more energy efficient and don't have the resources to speak out for themselves. I'm bothered by the apathy.We continue to leave these people behind when a lot of them don't have a choice.

They also don't have the resources to generate "pork barrel" contributions for their cause or lobbiest to help ensure they get their "fair share" of our country's resources

David Peters of MI 11:00AM February 12, 2008

Beyond the Barrel

Marianne Lavelle, senior writer, seeks out the path to an energy future that doesn’t wreck the planet or put you in the poorhouse.

advertisement