Saturday, February 26, 2011


Energy efficiency programs in CA, like Energy Upgrade California, could be impacted by funding cuts.

The State Legislature has proposed CUTTING funding for energy efficiency efforts -- including a portion of the dollars that fund programs like Energy Upgrade California rebates.
These cuts, if enacted, could significantly harm the Home Performance industry in California-- and we can't let them pass. Here's what we need:
  1. Click here to send an email to your state legislators opposing the cut
  2. Write your own letter to budget leaders in the legislature (you can view our letter as a guide, and add info about your company). Send it to:
  3. Forward this on to your contact lists and ask them to do the same.
Here's more details: The State Assembly and State Senate have proposed transferring $162 million of natural gas ratepayer surcharge funds intended for energy efficiency and moving them to the state's general fund.
That means $162 million less for programs like Energy Upgrade California. These cuts would:
  • Cut the legs out from under one of the state's key initiatives to drive job creation in the hard-hit construction sector.
  • Minimize the impact of ARRA investments in the state.
  • Reduce the rapid growth that these programs are expected to provide for Home Performance companies.
Help us rally urgent opposition to these proposed cuts.
Click here to tell your legislator to OPPOSE cutting funding for energy efficiency programs.
Brett Knox
Efficiency First California Chapter

Efficiency First is supported by over 1,200 member companies across the country.
To join Efficiency First, visit Member benefits: Efficiency First members have access to special members-only benefits: discounts on tech tools, trainings, conferences, branding and web services, business insurance, debt collection and more.
Take advantage of these deals by visiting

Michael's Comment:
Last week while interviewing Austan Goolsbee, President Obama's Economic Advisor, comedian John Stewart made the analogy that cutting spending upon vital infrastructure and human investments is like -
"trying to loose weight by cutting out spinach and vitamins from your diet."

It is with serious concern that I inform you all that CA is planning on cutting off funding for Energy Upgrade California:

Since 2008 I've been working in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Field. We've been trying to educate people, business and home owners (as well as our representatives), about how they can save money and the environment while creating a truly sustainable future. The key to our future is creating sustainable jobs, the first step is stopping the waste.

They say that our state government is bankrupt, cutting money on everything from redevelopment to public schools. So, why should we, Energy Engineers, be different? The reality is that our state has plenty of money, and our country has all the resources it needs! We live in a land of plenty with an abundance of natural and capital resources, but we don't use them well. There are entrenched interests that do not want our economy to change, they prefer the unsustainable systems of the past. They have created this false economic 'crisis' to keep us from realizing our potential, to impose cuts on the necessary functions of government, the very solutions that could create a SUSTAINABLE FUTURE.

Personally,  would gladly give up these Energy Upgrade California Rebates if they were going to public schools, or libraries, or hospitals. However, these funds were taken directly from every Utility Rate Payer, via state imposed fees on our bills, designed specifically to PROMOTE ENERGY EFFICIENCY, and now they will be redirected to the General Fund, and an unknown pocket.

Fighting for budget cuts on the terms of the people who brought us the present economic context, just to prop up their unsustainable business models, will destroy our future potential.

Michael Russell
Sustainable Future

1 comment:

  1. I have often wondered how much the Education Costs for the State of California would change if we only put ALL schools on renewable energy where "they" sold the energy into the grid instead of buying it? Can someone work the numbers on this so that we can re-frame the questions being asked?