CONTENTS Mannella, Gene G., Deputy Assistant Administrator for Conservation, Energy Research and Development Administration; accompanied by Maxine Savits, Director, Division of Buildings and Industry; and Gerald Leighton, Assistant Sant, Roger, Assistant Administrator for Energy Conservation and Environment, Appendixes: ADDITIONAL MATERIAL A. Memorandum from Richard Grundy, Senior Professional Staff Member, Report from 49 ENERGY CONSERVATION IN FEDERAL AND FEDERALLY ASSISTED BUILDINGS THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 1976 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9:10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 4200, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert Morgan (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Morgan and Randolph (chairman of the full committee). OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MORGAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Senator MORGAN. We will call our meeting to order this morning. I apologize for being late. I couldn't control the traffic, especially if you are a little late getting up in the morning. I have a short opening statement. We are here today to discuss energy supplies and costs as they affect Federal buildings. Right now energy costs are running neck-and-neck with financing costs—a situation unheard of several years ago. Because of changing cost relationships, we now find that the operating costs of a building can overwhelm the costs of construction. While I agree that life-cycle costs appear to be a good way to go in the future, I am not convinced that such a systems approach has, or will, produce much innovation. From this perspective, these hearings will address the role that energy management can serve to reduce the life-cycle costs for Federal buildings. Without the adoption of energy management practices, it will be very difficult to determine the steps needed to conserve energy or to evaluate the success of energy conservation measures. The three bills pending before the subcommittee propose energy management practices to achieve a reduction in energy consumption in government buildings. S. 2045 and S. 2095 would accomplish this through the adoption of improved analysis and design techniques. Both measures would encourage the demonstration of new energy conservation and solar energy systems. In addition, S. 1392 and S. 2095 provide funds for retrofitting existing buildings with energy-saving technologies. The three bills before us all have as their primary objective the reduction of energy consumption in Federal and federally assisted buildings. They would legislatively mandate such actions, rather than have such practices proceed on a voluntary basis in response to higher (1) energy costs. My thoughts on voluntary versus mandatory energy conservation are set forth in my opening statement last year on this legislation. For this reason the witnesses for today have been requested first to review the status of energy conservation, including solar energy, programs by Federal agencies with respect to public buildings, with particular emphasis on Federal buildings; second, to review the statutory basis for such Federal programs; and third, to ascertain the state of the art for the application of energy conservation, including solar energy, methods and technologies to Federal buildings and federally assisted buildings. In addition, the witnesses have been requested to address the technical and economic feasibility for implementing the three bills pending before the committee: S. 2045, the Federal Facilities Energy Conservation and Utilization Act of 1975; S. 1392, the Energy Conservation in Buildings Demonstration Act of 1975; and S. 2095, Conservation and Solar Energy-Federal Buildings Act of 1975. I look forward to hearing this testimony from today's panel. Senator Randolph, do you wish to make a statement at this time? Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a short opening statement that should not take too much time from the proceedings. The energy challenge to America is well known. We must develop our resources so we can supply a greater portion of our needs from domestic resources. Equally important, we must conserve non-renewable resources as well as foster greater utilization of such renewable energy resources as solar energy. Intelligent energy conservation will not hinder economic growth, increase unemployment, or lower our standard of living. Contrary to this allegation, energy conservation is vital to the sustaining of our standard of living, and rekindling economic growth. Energy conservation is as important in meeting our country's future energy needs as is the development of new energy resource supplies. Cost-effective energy conservation can reduce consumer costs, while freeing energy supplies for use within other sectors of our economy. In fact, energy conservation measures often are the most cost-effective means to deal with our country's energy problems. In such instances, we should choose energy conservation. While many energy users are aware of the desirability for conservation, the detailed information necessary to render investment decisions is all too often not available. Nevertheless, energy conservation is in the economic self-interest of consumers and businessmen, as well as all Americans. Frequently, energy conservation is the most cost-effective means for coping with our country's energy supply problems. A more concerted national commitment to energy conservation is not only desirable but feasible. The issue is not whether we should conserve energy, rather the issues are how should we conserve energy and how much should we conserve. As a national policy we should encourage the efficient use of energy in the sense that we do not use energy where the value of the product is less than its cost or less than its value in some alternative use. Energy prices below the true costs of energy are a major disincentive to conservation. One of the reasons why we now inefficiently consume our scarce energy resources is that energy is priced below its replacement cost as well as below its true societal value. Even where energy conservation measures are cost-effective, many American consumers are finding it difficult, if not impossible, to borrow the necessary capital to finance such improvements as better insulation in their homes or businesses. This is particularly the case for people on low incomes or elderly people on fixed incomes. Yet the costs of energy continue to rise and further bite into their comparatively limited incomes. In such instances, economic incentives may also be necessary, although energy conservation measures are costeffective in their own right. We must accept the challenge of energy conservation by consciously designing new buildings and redesigning existing buildings to incorporate cost-effective energy management practices and technologies. The legislation pending before the Public Works Committee is concerned for the energy conscious design of Federal buildings. The issue before the committee is what additional actions the Congress might take to encourage greater energy conservation in buildings owned or leased by the Federal Government. The Federal Government already has demonstrated energy conservation programs in the facilities it owns. The Federal Facilities Energy Conservation and Utilization Act of 1975, which I introduced last year, directs that all Federal agencies consider energy conservation to the fullest extent practicable consistent with their existing authorities. Similar legislation was incorporated in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. That 1975 Act requires the development of a 10year plan for energy conservation in buildings owned or leased by the Federal Government. This program falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Public Works and was discussed in my Senate remarks on this measure. I thus am interested in reviewing the activities of the Federal Energy Administration, in concert with the General Services Administration, to promote greater energy conservation in Federal buildings. Likewise I am interested in the activities of the Energy Research and Development Administration to foster new energy conservation technologies. Thank you. Senator MORGAN. We have as our witnesses this morning Mr. John Hill, the Deputy Administrator of the Federal Energy Administration, who has been detained for awhile; and Mr. Roger Sant, the FEA Assistant Administrator for Energy Conservation and Environment; Mr. Nicholas A. Panuzio, the Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service of the GSA; and Dr. Gene G. Mannella, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Conservation of the Energy Research and Development Administration. |