My specific policy and program knowledge is outdated by years now, but given a 72% reduction I can't imagine that the kind of work I used to do is surviving this except as a pale shadow of itself. With reductions of that magnitude, it's a problem of ethos. 72% is the bulk of everything. Wasteful, not wasteful, it's all mostly going to get dumpstered; as a result, i'm guessing you'd have an easier time looking up what's going to survive. It's very important to note that government funding for energy efficiency filters through a variety of intermediary organizations, many of them private, so it could be a while before the smoke clears.
Here's the thing: energy efficiency is an excellent use of money. The company I worked for, for example, would be offered contracts with public or private utilities to do work paid for in large part by government grant. What this meant was that they had a pool of money dedicated to improving home energy efficiency- mostly for low income housing (under 35k). They would hire outside contracting companies (us) to do the work. Utilities also do this work themselves, but have far less resources (staff) so outside contracting is a must. We would go to a house- either by invitation or as a cold call- and a do a comprehensive evaluation of the entire energy use, which allowed us to target areas of loss. Then we would fix it all up, retest, and if our numbers weren't good enough we wouldn't get paid. The home owner, however, did not get charged regardless of whether or not we hit target reduction. So we had a very high incentive to do as good of work as possible or not get paid, the home owner got it all for free, and the utility actually saved money because they were paying us via government grant to reduce energy loss on their system overall (which is a good thing). Our figures had to show a reimbursement rate that was cost effective or we did not get paid.
