Energy Conservation in Federal and Federally Assisted Buildings

certain substantial leadership in its efforts to conserve energy in Government facilities.

We must now expand on our knowledge and on our understanding, making energy conservation a permanent consideration in the widest range of our lives. This means that, among other facts, we must examine the programs which have been authorized by the Committee on Public Works.

Mr. Chairman, you, in your Subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds, are coming to grips with this matter in the hearings which begin today.

I commend you for this initiative and I assure you of my utmost cooperation. It doesn't necessarily have to be the bill on which I make the premise of these remarks. It will be my pleasure to work with you and with others in the development of legislation that can bring into being the goals which I have indicated are necessary.

We need really a crusade of conservation within the Federal structure. This does not seem to diminish that which has been done. It seems only to me to be encouraging to that which can and must be done.

Certainly, the example that we in the Federal Government can give to people in other political subdivisions can be of immeasureable value as we move forward in this important area of the conservation of fuels and energy thinking in terms not only of lessening the imports as we are trying to do now in the conference which is underway this afternoon; thinking in ways, of course, of the productivity of energy within our own country, but realizing that there also is the opportunity through creativity, through resourcefulness, for people within Government to do this job.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, very, very much.

Senator MORGAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

We will pursue your bill as we go along with the hearings. We have a vote on. We have 5 minutes to vote. So I will declare a recess and go vote and come back. Then maybe we can get on with the hearings. [Brief recess.]

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MORGAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Senator MORGAN. We will come back to order.

I had an opening statement which I had proposed to make before we began the hearings. We have already heard from Senator Randolph. For the record, I think I will make it so that all of you here may know what we will be trying to do for the next 3 or 4 days.

We are here to discuss three bills that are now pending before this committee and these all propose methods to achieve reduced energy consumption in Government buildings.

There is S. 2045, which was introduced by the chairman of the parent committee, Senator Randolph, and you have heard him discuss that bill briefly.

S. 2095, introduced by Senator Gary Hart, of Colorado, and others.

These two bills would try to reduce energy consumption through use of new analysis and design techniques. Both would authorize demonstration systems and encourage use of more efficient equipment.

S. 1392, which we will also be considering, that was introduced by Senator Tunney, provides for retrofitting existing buildings with energy saving equipment and materials.

Some 14 percent of all energy resources in this country are currently consumed by commercial and Federal office buildings. Progress has been made in the last 2 years to reduce this percentage by GSA and other agencies of Government working on their own initiative.

Mainly, this was done by cutting back on lights, heating, air conditioning, and operational practices that come under their control. This is primarily a matter of judicious budgeting and had resulted in a reduction of 20 to 30 percent below their previous needs which I think is extremely commendable.

Now the stage is set. We know, for instance, that savings can be made. These efforts have related mainly to buildings that are occupied, where various procedures could be tried and observed on a day-to-day basis.

Evaluations of the economy and efficiency could be made as they went along. Based on this, and with the help of outside consultants, GSA and others have developed and published workable guidelines that can affect substantial energy savings in existing buildings and also affect substantial energy savings in the design and construction of new buildings. I hope that we can discuss these later in more detail, and we will.

The three bills before us all have, as their maior goal, the reduction of energy consumption in Federal and federally assisted buildings. They would mandate this legislatively, rather than have it proceed on a voluntary or strictly agency-oriented basis.

Advocates think it necessary in order to formulate a national standard, which they believe is essential. They feel some agencies might not be inclined to subordinate their individual efforts in this respect, and are concerned that no agency has jurisdiction over construction and procurement policies in any other.

Opponents feel that to legislate technical procedures is wrong and unnecessary in this case. They think it would inhibit efforts already underway to resolve the Nation's energy problems, as these pertain to Federal buildings.

To be frank, I am also concerned at this point, before hearing the testimony. These bills seem to have one thing in common and that is rather high cost. $300 million, which one of them would authorize, is a lot of money and I have doubts as to whether or not the budget can stand it.

Also, they all propose additional research, studies, and reports, and I wonder if these are necessary since much of this, including the publication of technical guidelines, already has been done.

It will be the purpose of this committee, during the course of the

that has been done, and facts that are available so that when we come to voting on these bills, we can eliminate duplication wherever possible.

Further, each bill would assign responsibility for a Federal energy conservation program to different agencies. Each of these have diversified interests that may not be compatible with developing and enforcing an across-the-board national set of standards.

I wonder just how far we can go in setting up new materials and procurement regulations, or determining the merits of a proposal on the basis of how much energy was used in the manufacture and handling of construction materials.

Also, I wonder if life cycle cost projections can be relied upon in all cases, particularly where alterations or retrofit projects are concerned. I am very much interested in the conference that is now going on at Harvard, concerning life cycle costing. I had the privilege of being there yesterday morning. I think it is going to be a rather challenging and enlightening program, and I look forward to seeing and hearing some of the results from that.

I also look forward to hearing the testimony that those of you who are present are going to offer. We will have some technical questions that were prepared by staff, and hope you can furnish us some answers and information.

And as a layman I will have many questions that may seem somewhat naive and simple, but unless I have a clear understanding of what you are talking about, I could not vote very intelligently.

One of the things I particularly want to do as we begin these hearings, is to make sure we have a clear understanding of each of the three bills, which will serve as a basis of understanding in the days to

come.

You heard Senator Randolph give a résumé and statement on his bill, which I suggest we come back to shortly. It may be well, however, since we have Senator Hart here, to move our schedule ahead and hear from him.

Senator Hart, are you ready now?

Senator HART. Yes; I am.

Senator MORGAN. So rather than go further with the chairman's bill, S. 2045, let's discuss your S. 2095. We are very appreciative of your coming in and taking the time to present your bill.

I know you won't be able to stay long, but I hope you will have someone here from your staff, for to me the subject is one of the most crucial that I have ever had the privilege to participate in.

I talked to Senator Randolph and he agrees that we should not limit the hearings in any way until we have gotten all the information and facts that we can. So we welcome your statement today and anything further you have to offer as we go along. We need as much input from you as possible.