Community organizers in the South Sound want the Legislature to set aside up to $30 million in federal stimulus funds for energy upgrades on middle-class homes and small businesses around the state, from installing new insulation to replacing oil-burning furnaces.
But some private companies and state officials want freedom to spend it on other energy-saving measures, such as retrofitting power-sucking hospitals and other large buildings.
The moderate-income housing weatherization money would come from a $60 million chunk of stimulus dollars distributed by the U.S. Department of Energy.
Of all the money Washington is receiving from the federal stimulus package, “it’s probably the most flexible money in the whole thing,” said Dick Thompson, special assistant to Gov. Chris Gregoire.
It’s also about 70 times more than the state has ever received from the federal government to spend freely on renewable energy and conservation projects, said Jake Fey, Tacoma city councilman and director of Washington State University’s Energy Extension Program.
The $60 million can be spent on nearly any such project, from incentives to buy energy-efficient vehicles to investments in renewable energy.
But that flexibility is causing a tug of war between those who think lawmakers should earmark as much as half for housing upgrades and those who want to look at a wider range of options.
The state Senate proposes to spend $15 million to make moderate-income homes and small commercial buildings more energy-efficient. The House budget would devote $30 million for the same purpose.
“The intent is that this money goes to helping average American citizens on the street,” said Dusty Hoerler, an organizer with Sound Alliance, a network of community groups, congregations and labor unions in the Puget Sound area.
The group wants to start a pilot project that would initially help about 200 moderate-income homeowners in the Tacoma area with energy upgrades, along with 6,000 to 8,000 homes across the state in the next three years.
But businesses that focus on energy-saving products and services question whether residences provide the same opportunities as larger projects.
“When we do the analysis, often the most energy-savings return for the dollar comes from these larger institutional and commercial buildings,” said Stan Price, executive director of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Council, which represents companies that specialize in energy efficiency.
The $60 million in federal money also could leverage partnerships between utilities and private companies.
“We don’t want to get the ‘one-and-done’ phenomenon with the utilization of the dollars,” Price said. “Let’s make them work as hard as they can.”
Price said he’d like to see significantly less of the flexible funds go toward moderate-income housing weatherization – or preferably none at all.
So would officials with the state Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. They want the Legislature to let them solicit project applications and evaluate them individually before allocating any of the money, said Cory Plantenberg, energy program manager with the department.
Officials would prefer the Legislature not outline specific use of the funds, she said.
“There are a lot of ideas out there,” Plantenberg said. “This is a wonderful opportunity, and we need to make the most of it.”
Compounding the department’s concerns is that a separate pot of stimulus money is already designated for low-income housing weatherization in Washington.
That money also totals $60 million, and will go mainly toward state residents who make less than 125 percent of the federal poverty level, or $27,563 per year for a family of four in 2009.
Sen. Phil Rockefeller, D-Bainbridge Island, said the low-income program leaves out many families whose homes could benefit from energy projects. What he’s proposing would extend the benefits to people who make between 80 percent and 120 percent of the median family income in their area.
In Pierce County, that would mean families that bring in between $47,122 and $70,683, based on the state Office of Financial Management’s numbers from 2008. Businesses that bring in an average of less than $1 million per year would also be eligible.
“I’d say it’s sort of a triple play: It’s good for the environment, it’s good for the economy and it’s good for communities,” Rockefeller said.
Legislative leaders are now trying to agree on a number somewhere between $15 million and $30 million for moderate-income housing weatherization, although it’s possible the final amount could be lower.
“There has been some evolution of thinking and ideas,” Rockefeller said. “We are trying to blend our thinking with that of the House.”
Melissa Santos: 253-552-7058
JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.