Mr. STELSON. I agree with most things my neighbor has said here, but I totally disagree with him on this matter.

This is one of the most constructive things that has been done in the energy area. The reason why it is constructive and effective is-for example, I met yesterday with a GSA group concerning the design of a new Federal office building in Savannah. In the design contract there will be an energy standard. The pride of professionals, which is really the thing that counts, is going to be on the line. Furthermore, they can be sued if their product doesn't operate right. Now, this is far better than the typical kind of building code standard which doesn't have performance descriptions. So, I personally commend DOE. I think it is one of the best things they have done. There will be violations of it, just like there are violations of building codes and so on and so forth. Generally, it will be a tremendous benefit.

Mr. OTTINGER. Is there any way we can improve the standard? Let us hear about it.

Mr. STELSON. We studied homes up and down and back and forth and by far the most cost effective change was to improve the energy conditions of the home. In fact, for a $50 first cost investment, we could reduce energy consumption 25 percent in a typical home. We recommended those FHA changes in standards and we patted ourselves on the back, but we were condemned for technical solutions that did not have social relevance. Those were in the days when they were trying to house the poor. They did not want the cost of the home to go up $50, in spite of the fact it would be returned in 2 months.

So, we do have an enormous inventory of poorly designed and poorly constructed homes. That is a tragedy of our recent past. Mr. OTTINGER. Do you have any suggestions that would insure that standards for future buildings are improved, or any way we could impose improved standards on retrofitting existing buildings. I think this is an area where we can make the fastest, cheapest, cleanest oil savings.

Mr. BALCOMB. I agree with that. I think, however, the proposed standards approach is not going to be very effective; that is one of my primary concerns.

The other primary concern is the way in which it stifles innovation. If people are given a stimulus to innovate, then remarkable things can happen. The builders in this country are not the stodgy people that they are represented to be; they are very innovative. If you push the right kind of button, they can do some remarkable things.

Mr. OTTINGER. What I recommended to Secretary Walden is that you have the same kind of progressive standards for buildings as you have for automobile efficiency. You have increasing demands each year over a period of, maybe, 10 years for building efficiency. Wouldn't that challenge the profession?

Mr. BALCOMB. The problem is that I don't know how they are proposing to enforce those standards. They are going to use computer codes, which are totally incapable of handling passive systems to begin with, as a means of enforcement.

You come to a building inspector with some different kind of an approach. He will say, "my system can't handle it; you can't build