a new media specialist here at the Energy Department. And joining me today is Dr. Kathleen

Hogan, assistant deputy secretary for energy efficiency. Today we’ll be discussing how

the cost savings associated with industrial energy efficiency affects American companies

and their global competitiveness. But before we start with the questions, Dr. Hogan, is

there anything you’d like to say?

KATHLEEN HOGAN: Sure. I’d like to talk a little bit about what we’re doing here at

the Department of Energy. You know, we’re working to develop energy efficiency initiatives

that improve our economic competitiveness, create jobs, improve our energy security,

lower costs and reduce pollution. And today we’ll be specifically focusing on two of

our major initiatives: one, the Better Buildings and Better Plants Program, and the other,

the Advanced Manufacturing Initiative.

The first one, Better Buildings, Better Plants, is focused on boosting the competitiveness

of companies, really, in the here and now. In this program we’re providing assistance

to companies that commit to achieving a 25 percent improvement in their energy intensity

over the next 10 years, if not earlier. In the other, the Advanced Manufacturing Initiative,

we’ll be working with organizations to address early-stage technical challenges, with some

innovative manufacturing processes as materials, that have huge potential for the United States.

And while we’re still in the early stages of this program, it clearly has stuck a chord

with American businesses. In response to $120 million solicitation we have open, we’ve

received over 1,400 letters of interest representing over $4 billion in work. So we are – we’re

looking forward to reviewing these proposals once they all come in, and really working

on some outstanding investments to grow American leadership in manufacturing technologies,

and in turn growing our GNP and jobs.

So I’m looking forward to hearing your ideas and suggestions during today’s Live Chat.

So let’s get started.

MR. HESS: All right. Well, we’ve gotten – we’ve gotten a number of emails, Facebook

status – or rather comments, and Tweets as well. There’s been a common theme here,

actually. To paraphrase several questions: How important is this energy-efficient manufacturing

and industrial technology to strengthening our economy?

MS. HOGAN: Well, certainly that’s a great place to get started today. You know, our

manufacturing sector in the United States truly is a big part of what we do. It represents

12 million jobs, and it represents about 60 percent of our exports – so also then, a

big part of our GNP. So manufacturing is really critical to our economy. And what we want

to be doing is continuing to boost its competitiveness, boost its leadership around the world so we

can continue to strengthen our economic position. So really, manufacturing – advanced manufacturing

and U.S. competitiveness really go hand in hand.

MR. HESS: Great. And, you know, that – there are the processes that we’re dealing with,

but then there’s also, well, the buildings, right? And that’s where we’re coming into

our second question – an actual two-part question from Mark (sp) on Facebook, who asks

why there aren’t tighter regulations right now for energy efficiency and commercial buildings.

So first, what are the barriers to making commercial buildings more energy-efficient?

And second, what would make buildings more energy – would making – sorry – buildings

more energy-efficient make our economy stronger?

MS. HOGAN: Right. So the buildings area, you know, does have a lot of opportunity for energy

efficiency improvements, and the questioner has really asked, first, about building codes.

So building codes are something that we are doing across the country. And really, the

Department of Energy’s role there is to do determinations around the energy savings

that result from sort of new-model energy codes that come to us through consensus stakeholder

processes.

So can those codes that the stakeholders are developing – could they be more stringent?

They can, and they do get more stringent over time. I think right now we’re in the process

of doing a code determination on a code that improves the commercial building energy efficiency

for new construction by something in the neighborhood of 20 to 30 percent. So we will be seeing

tighter codes for commercial buildings soon.

Now, at the same time, why are we doing those codes? It is because we have sort of a disconnect

in the marketplace, where the people that sort of build the buildings typically aren’t

the people that are in the buildings, occupy them and pay the energy bills. And that’s,

you know, a market failure, a market barrier. And the codes are there to help us build to

the level that’s cost-effective so when the building gets handed over to the owner,

or the tenants lease the building, they won’t be paying a higher energy bill than they otherwise

have to.

But I did say in there that – you know, that we’re building to a level that’s

cost effective. And that’s truly what we want to keep doing, is finding the right level

of the codes so that when you put the better technologies and the practices in the buildings,

it really is a good payback for the whole sort of life cycle and system. So as we are

looking forward to the upcoming increased stringency of the commercial code – again,

it’ll get more stringent, but it will also be in a cost-effective way as well.

So we are looking forward to that happening and continuing to offer the type of assistance

the Department of Energy can to assist people in getting to those levels and, you know,

the training and enforcement – all so we can reap all those benefits.

MR. HESS: Now, you – so right now you’re talking a lot about the investments that the

Department of Energy – Energy Department has in programs and projects, which actually

comes from Chris (sp). He’s asking that as well in an email: Where we have so many

– so many programs, what accounts for manufacturers not using those? And what is our department

doing to encourage those manufacturers to pursue energy efficiency more aggressively?

MS. HOGAN: Yeah, so we talk a lot about energy efficiency in this country. And we talk about

the low-hanging fruit. We talk about energy efficiency being sort of the lowest-cost path

to a clean-energy future. And all those things are true. And I guess the other thing we hear

is we’ve been talking about energy efficiency for a while, and a lot of that low-hanging

fruit is still there. So why is it still there? Well – you know, because all those things

are true. Energy efficiency is low cost, it’s the low-hanging fruit, and indeed, much of

it is still there.

And it is because there are a variety of market barriers in – you know, in – or just across

the economy, whether it’s in our industrial facilities, in our companies, in our buildings,

that we really have to get together to address. When you look at industrial companies, some

of the issues there are just that the efficiency is in enough different places across the facilities

that it’s a little bit hard to get organized in a way that you’re routinely going out

there and finding the energy efficiency opportunities, making the small investments that need to

be made, and then reaping those benefits.

One of the things we have found in working with lots of companies across the country,

is that if we can work with the executive suite in those organizations so that the executives

truly understand the opportunities that are there and the – sort of the path to implement

sort of energy management throughout their organization, and will set energy efficiency

goals for the organization, you can really engage the whole culture of the organization

in achieving those savings and delivering the benefits to the organization.

But it is still interesting, as you look across the country at this point in time, that there

are still many, many companies that haven’t really established an energy-savings target

for their organization. Many have – and leading organizations, and many of them we’re

working with through the Better Buildings, Better Plants program. But there are many

others who haven’t. And I think many of them still don’t quite understand the benefits

that are there to be had in – that, you know, include lower costs and increased competitiveness

as well as other benefits in terms of lower pollution and increased energy security.

So there’s a little bit of education we have to keep doing. There’s working with

the leaders to keep showing the pathway and the savings that can be achieved. And that’s

really one of the reasons we’re very excited about what we’re now doing with Better Buildings,

Better Plants, because I think those leaders will really help show the way for many of

the others that energy efficiency just offers great bang for the buck.

MR. HESS: So there’s the – these new programs, and we were just asked in an email – and

I think this might require a little bit of background – but why can’t the private

sector produce on its own the kind of technological advances that your office is supporting through

your R&D efforts? And I believe he’s referring to the American Manufacturing Partnership’s

Innovative Manufacturing Initiative and the Grand Portfolio Challenge.

MS. HOGAN: Sure. Well, certainly the Department of Energy is involved in a whole variety of

efforts in energy efficiency, from research and development to engaging with industry

and others to improve the efficiency of their organizations and facilities in the here and

the now. This question is sort of going up into that R&D space. And we get this question

a lot. What is it you are really doing that changes the path that we’re on as a country

with energy efficiency?

And we’ve been doing this work now for quite a while. So let me just speak to some of that.

You know, as we work with companies, we do see that they have to wrestle with fairly

complex technical challenges as they’re bringing a new product or a new material to

the marketplace. And some of those technical challenges can be complex enough that it really

– there is no totally clear technical answer at that point in time. And it’s a fair amount

of research to go and get the answers to those questions.

And if that research costs enough, the company is just – won’t take it on. So what we

have offered – you know, over and over – is cost sharing for those projects to help those

organizations get over that cost hurdle and get to the point where they can then see a

clear path to commercialization, at which point you need lesser resources from the federal

government.

So we’ve put together, I believe, a very thoughtful approach to engaging with industry

as they want to innovate in terms of the type of cost share we will provide based on sort

of the complexities and the stage of the research the project is in. And then we offer less

of that technical – those resources as that product matures. So I think we are truly in

a good place there.

MR. HESS: All right. So in a similar vein, but actually almost on a personal level for

you as well – you – you’ve had a lot of experience with combined heat and power

and corporate partnerships here and at the EPA, which – that was 10 years, is that

accurate? I think –

MS. HOGAN: Or more.

MR. HESS: – at EPA. And – so we got a through an email asking: Since you have – since

you have had EPA experience and now are at the Energy Department, could you address the

overlap in energy efficiency efforts between the EPA and the Department of Energy?

MS. HOGAN: Sure. So, yeah, I’ve now been at the Department of Energy for two years,

and been at the EPA for many years prior to that. And I would say that the work of the

EPA and DOE actually doesn’t overlap. I think it’s very complementary. And I think

it’s one of the things I’ve been focused on since I’ve being here – been here,

is to see that the agency’s – agencies’ – (with emphasis) – work really does complement

each other.

We now sit down at least on an annual basis to develop a joint work plan across our energy

efficiency efforts. And that’s really just the start, as we coordinate much more actively

as the – you know, the year progresses. So I think we’re here to leverage what it

is that the EPA has developed, and then to play the role that the Department of Energy

can across the suite of programs and projects that are really our strength and our core

capabilities.

MR. HESS: All right. So our next email is associated with kind of a higher level of

economic expansion in association with energy efficiency. And it’s coming from Robert

(sp), who in his – in his – in his email he opines that strong economic expansion and

fuller employment are associated with energy and lower costs and lower consumption of energy.

And he asks you: Are there any examples of – or periods in U.S. history where a policy

of greater energy efficiency combined with the actual efforts at energy conservation

spurs economic expansion and strong job creation?

MS. HOGAN: Certainly an interesting question. I think if we just look back over the last,

I don’t know, 20, 30 years or so, and really tally up how much energy efficiency has occurred

in this country, we’ll see that energy efficiency is probably the thing that we’ve potentially

used the most of, relative to other fuels. Energy efficiency is really playing a tremendous

role in terms of where we are now in energy per GDP, as an example. So I would say that

there is pretty good information that energy efficiency is part and parcel with having

sort of -- or of us being in a relatively good place, as you look at where we are over

the last 20 to 30 years.

But I think where we are now is really needing to look to the future and chart what we need

to do to deal with all of the challenges that we see before us. And as we look at those

challenges, it includes being economically competitive, building jobs, improved energy

security. And I think it – we don’t have to look too far to see that energy efficiency

is – particularly when you roll in that energy efficiency truly is low cost – that

it is just a critical part of what we need to do going forward.

MR. HESS: And so there – we’ve been – we’ve been talking more at the – at the higher

level, and you know, just seeing here that there have been a lot of specific questions