1997, the SCDP will begin other tests to verify load-following, power quality and other performance features to validate megawatt -class carbonate fuel cell systems. The SCDP test results and other findings are to be fedback to the commercial unit's final design and planned PDI unit testing (see next section). Product Design Improvement Technology Development: Efforts are targeted for improved fuel cell component performance and materials content reduction to lower costs. These advances will also affect enhanced fuel cell power density, component life and stack reliability. Additionally, ERC will have achieved over 150,000 hours of cumulative testing of carbonate fuel cell stacks and systems exceeding by far the most hours tested by any other advanced fuel cell technology. These accomplishments assure continuation of U.S. dominance as the world leader in carbonate fuel cell technology, and with it some assurance for protecting the many jobs and trade benefits created as a result. Fuels flexibility remains one of the most important market attraction features of the fuel cell, offering operational alternatives for power plant managers when fuel prices fluctuate. Test verification of military logistics fuels will be completed in the coordinated DOD/DOE program co-sponsored by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). An acceptance test facility will be constructed at ERC for fuel cell stack module performance verification, alternative fuels testing and a 10,000 hour test of the PDI unit. The commercial plant design will incorporate improvements recognized from the R&D effort and the results from the PDI activities at the acceptance test facility. These would include improved fuel cell performance, reductions in equipment costs, and proficiency in performing field functionsmodule handling and installation, plant start-up and acceptance operations. PDI Unit: The PDI unit's construction phase will commence. The unit will be initially placed at the acceptance test facility to test and qualify the new stack module and pre-commercial BOP hardware assemblage prior to placing production orders with FCE's subcontractors. This effort is coordinated with attaining firm orders from the FCCG buyers for their early production commercial units. The PDI unit may then be transferred to a host utility site for operational evaluation in an end-use environment. This evaluation and the associated deliverables marks the effective completion of the ERC contracted program. Commercialization Planning: In FY 1997, the prototype commercial stack will be constructed by ERC's stack manufacturing subsidiary prior to final tooling and production machinery procurement in anticipation of manufacturing the first series of commercial units. This initiative is the major R&D challenge remaining along with integrating the stack impacts on the overall plant design. Activities associated with attracting additional commercial unit orders will continue. In 1997, FCE will increase its staff and associations in order to reach more potential customers, with initial emphasis on domestic applications. There is a strong attraction to sell to foreign nations, however, ERC believes that product worth and quality must be established within the U.S. where servicing delivered units is more easily accomplished. Once proven, ERC anticipates that foreign markets with dispersed populations, eager for electrification and absent a national grid-like infrastructure, will be very interested in this clean, high efficiency, fuels flexible generation option. THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1996. DOE WITNESS SARA WARD, CHIEF, OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT Mr. REGULA. Next is the National Association for State Community Services Programs, Sara Ward. Ms. WARD. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I'm very pleased to be here. My name is Sara Ward, and I'm a State energy office director in the State of Ohio. I'm glad to finally be here. The State energy office in the State of Ohio administers the State grant programs and the weatherization program. And I want to say how much we appreciate the support that the committee has provided to all of those programs. Today, I'm specifically here to talk about the low income weatherization program on behalf of the national association that represents all weatherization programs. My testimony is in support of 1997 funding at a level of $192 million which is roughly a 15 percent reduction from the 1995 appropriation level for weatherization, and we believe that this is a consistent level compared to other energy and efficiency and renewable reductions that have occurred in the past year. The weatherization program has been measured and demonstrated to provide significant savings; 18.2 percent is the national average for savings for services for the weatherization programs, and that was back in 1989. And because of the strong support that the committee has given the program over the past four and five years, we certainly believe that that has increased. The technology has improved, and we believe that the savings is closer to the mid-twenties range although there have not been new national studies done. Weatherization pays back an estimated $3 for every dollar that is spent by this committee. Mr. REGULA. Why would companies or hospitals or schools weatherize on their own since they get these great savings? Ms. WARD. Well, this program provides services just for low income residents. I'm sorry, I should have made that more clear up front. The other thing that you should know is that the weatherization program does produce directly 52 jobs and indirectly another 22 jobs for every $1 million that is appropriated in the program. I mentioned the study that was done by Oakridge National Labs back in 1989, and the fact that we feel that the technology has advanced significantly in the past few years. In fact, this program is probably the closest thing that you have to a national laboratory that provides services in every State, every county, and every community of the country. This laboratory has produced new technology for residential energy efficiency services that is not available yet in the market place as a standard today, and I think that it is important that that commitment has come as a result of the commitment on the part of the local agencies and the States administering this program and wanting to get the best result out of every public and private dollar that we are able to leverage for the program. The weatherization Mr. REGULA. You have about one minute left. Ms. WARD. One minute yet, okay. The weatherization program in Ohio has leveraged somewhere in the neighborhood of about $6.6 million that is not administered through the State program. That has come from private sector donations but primarily utility sources. About 80 percent of that has come from utilities. Mr. REGULA. Would this be where you check off when you pay your bills? Ms. WARD. No, this is actually utilities sitting down and negotiating with local programs to put integrated programs together. Mr. REGULA. A block of money. Ms. WARD. That's correct. And one of the initiatives in Ohio that you might be particularly interested in-and that I hope you have an opportunity to observe sometime when you're back in the State is the Home Energy Rating System where we are actually trying to commercialize the services in the low income program and make them available in the market place. Bill Morgan is the president of the board of the organization called HERO, and he said to say hello for him. So, if you have an opportunity to come see the program in operation, we would love to have you. I've provided a brochure that explains those services, but the thing that you need to understand is that the weatherization program has been able to take this into the market place because of the support it has received from Federal funds, and that that partnership is very, very critical to the success of this effort. In closing, I'd just like to say that we have again enjoyed the support of this committee. We would like to continue to see the support of this committee come through with a very strong message of funding for the future. Mr. REGULA. Thank you for coming. You know we are making some reduction in our dollars, so it makes it quite a challenge. Ms. WARD. I understand. We think it's a worthy challenge. Mr. REGULA. Okay, thank you. Ms. WARD. Thanks. [The statement of Ms. Ward follows:] Testimony presented by Sara Ward, Chief, Office of Energy Efficiency, Ohio Department of Development on behalf of the National Association for State Community Services Programs (NASCSP). Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee I am pleased to be here to speak to you on behalf of the National Association for State Community Services Programs (NASCSP), whose members are the state directors of the Weatherization Assistance Program, and the Ohio Office of Energy Efficiency. My testimony is in support of FY 1997 funding of $192 million for the Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program (DOE/WAP). This request represents a 15% reduction from the FY 1995 Appropriation for this program. This reduction is consistent with other reductions made in FY 1996 in the energy efficiency and renewable accounts. NASCSP recognizes that this is a year in which a number of worthy programs are seeking your attention for increased appropriations, and also a year in which your committee's funds are limited. We have traditionally supported continued funding for the State Energy Conservation Grant Programs and our support for these initiatives remains strong today. Weatherization is one of these programs, and demonstrates the competitive edge that the State grant programs offer. WAP produces an average of 18.2% in space heating energy savings. WAP produces 52 direct and 22 indirect jobs for every million dollars BENEFITS OF WEATHERIZATION The primary purpose of the Weatherization Assistance Program is to increase the energy efficiency of residences occupied by low-income citizens; however, the program benefits every American by providing a more efficient and internationally competitive economy, by creating jobs and by improving the environment through the reduction and prevention of pollution. Weatherization is an investment of taxpayer dollars that has a proven return in energy savings. According to the 1989 evaluation by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the program saved $1.72 for every dollar appropriated. Advances in the past seven years have increased the savings to an estimated three dollars for every taxpayer dollar. These dollars remain in each community as discretionary income. The Weatherization program does not give a low-income household a check. It increases the household's disposable income by reducing its energy costs which makes energy costs more affordable. Weatherization is a program that has proven it can reduce energy consumption. While the actual annual dollar savings may fluctuate, from year to year depending on the cost of fuel to the customer, we know that the weatherized home will reduce that customer's energy use year after year. This reduces Page 1 TESTIMONY, March 7, 1996: Sara Ward, Ohio, for NASCSP their dependence on programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), known as HEAP in Ohio. Weatherization not only saves money, it saves energy. In its evaluation of the program, ORNL found that weatherization investments in 1989 alone will save the Btu equivalent of 12 million barrels of oil over the lifetime of the measures installed. These savings are increased each year of the program. Governor Lincoln Almond (R-RI) described a recent occurrence that may bring some of this information into focus. On January 19, 1996, the oil barge North Cape went aground on the coast of Rhode Island, spilling 828,000 gallons of heating oil into their waters. The Rhode Island Weatherization program has saved more than 50 times the amount of oil that endangered their vital fishing industry and damaged their sensitive ecosystem. Weatherization is a primary source of technology development. The Weatherization Assistance Program is the undisputed leader in the deployment of advanced residential energy efficiency technologies. It provides the real-world laboratory for testing of new technologies such as air infiltration diagnostic tools, testing for duct leakage and health and safety measures. The Weatherization program helps people stay in their homes and preserves affordable housing. A 1989 study by Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL) indicated that low-income persons whose homes were weatherized moved less often than those in a control group whose homes were not weatherized. This is a significant social return. It provides greater stability for households with children and assists elderly Americans by making it possible for them to continue to live in their own homes and maintain their independence. By preventing housing from falling into disrepair, more expensive rehabilitation and repairs are avoided. The Weatherization program increases health and safety. For example, by identifying the presence of carbon monoxide and eliminating it, the program saves lives as well as prevents long-term effects from the presence of undetected carbon monoxide. Although hard to quantify, this benefits not only the households weatherized but society in general by reducing health care costs to Medicaid, Medicare and the private sector. IMPORTANCE OF FUNDING FOR WEATHERIZATION There are approximately 17 million households that are still eligible for, and in need of, assistance. For example, in Ohio, over 200,000 households are spending more than 25% of their annual income for their utility bills. This means a family of 4 with $18,938 annual income will spend more than $4,734 just on energy bills. The almost 50% cut in WAP in FY 1996 will mean that nationally over 60,000 fewer homes will be weatherized, resulting in a twenty-year increase of 2 billion Btu consumed; an increase of over 1.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions and an increase of over $240 million in energy bills to the poor as compared to FY 1995. A further loss of over $150 million in leveraged funds because of LIHEAP cuts and utility match reductions means these energy and environmental impacts resulting from DOE cuts represent just half the damage. Page 2 TESTIMONY, March 7, 1996: Sara Ward, Ohio, for NASCSP |