THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The American Institute of Architects shares your committee's grave concern over our nation's emerging energy crisis. Those of us who are studying the energy problem in this country do not know the full scope and role of this so-called crisis in American life. However, we do know that the built and planned environment is very significant in the amount and kind of energy we consume as an urbanized society. The AIA through the AIA Research Corporation is undertaking four major programs in the energy field under the general direction of our National Energy Conservation Task Force. The first study is one in which we are working with The Ford Foundation to develop architectural criteria for designing buildings which are conserving of energy, including the removal of institutional barriers to conserving energy in the built environment. Or research in this area should be completed this year. The second program we are undertaking is with the assistance of the General Services Administration and private industry. It involves the development of a traveling exhibit to have its grand opening in New York later this year. Thirdly, the AIA, working with the Naitonal Bureau of Standards, is examining the role of the design professions in the solution of the energy problem. This is a long-range undertaking, but we would hope to have some suitable findings available late this year. Finally, the AIA will embark on a two-year program to study the consumption of energy in the existing built environment throughout the United States and to project the performance of that built environment into the future. We will be studying the performance of building materials, the consumption of energy in their manufacture, and the energy it takes to put them in place. A grant application has been filed with the National Science Foundation to assist in funding this effort. We are beginning to respond to the needs within the energy conservation field. Unfortunately, we are not at a position to report to you any of our specific findings and conclusions. We would hope, however, to have the opportunity to do this in the months ahead. Without getting into a complete review of the merits of the proposals represented by S. 70 and S. 419, we feel we must raise a warning flag. Both bills suggest the creation of a separate institutional identity within the Executive Branch of the government to oversee the energy problem facing our nation. We question this direction in that energy concerns cannot be separated from the overall national environmental concerns. We should be marrying these policy questions within the existing governmental environmental mechanism. We would very much appreciate the inclusion of this letter in the record of the hearings you are now conducting relative to S. 70 and S. 419. We feel that the work we are undertaking is directly related to the objectives of this legislation and welcome this opportunity to be heard. Sincerely yours, S. SCOTT FEREBEE, Jr., FAIA, President. CMSCI, Washington, D.C., February 22, 1973. DEAR SENATOR Magnuson: The Council of Mechanical Specialty Contracting Industries is an organization of associations representing the four major mechanical specialty construction trades, mechanical, plumbing-heating-cooling, sheet metal, and electrical firms. Taken together, these four mechanical specialties often contribute more than 50 percent of the work on a given construction project by dollar volume. Members of the Council include the Mechanical Contractors Association of America, the National Association of Plumbing, Heating, Cooling Contractors, the National Electrical Contractors Association, and the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association. The Council and its Member organizations share a deep concern over the current "energy crisis." We submit, herewith, a statement in support of the concept behind S-70, to create a Council on Energy Policy. We welcome its inclusion as part of the hearing record on this measure if you deem it appropriate. STATEMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MECHANICAL SPECIALTY CONTRACTING INDUSTRIES The standard of living which our nation has come to enjoy and expect is based on a high and growing per-capita consumption of energy. Our economic prosperity and growth is founded, similarly, in the availability of abundant, relatively inexpensive energy resources. The future of the construction industry, which contributes nearly 10 percent of the annual gross national product, is inextricably bound to our nation's future economic growth and development. Without growth there can be little new construction; and without an adequate supply of energy there can be no growth. With these facts in mind, the Council of Mechnical Specialty Contracting Industries, representing over 15,000 construction firms doing a substantial percentage of the nation's construction, has expressed a clear, sharp concern over the current "energy crisis." The many diverse factors contributing to the crisis have been well publicized. What has not been so well aired is the way in which conflicting, overlapping and sometimes contradictory planning and regulation has tangled the facts of the crisis in a deep morass of confusion. The first and possibly the most important step toward meeting and solving our energy dilemma should be a full scale effort to provide leadership in coordinaing the present scattershot approach to energy planning and regulation. Such coordination should take into consideration Federal, state and local government bodies as well as concerned private industries, groups and individuals. This coordinated leadership appears to be embodied in the Council on Energy Policy established by S-70. CMSCI, therefore, joins with other concerned organizations in support for the concept underlying the measure S-70, creation of a Council on Energy Policy. A coordinated, planned approach to wise energy policy, balancing the desperate energy needs of our nation against the equally important environmental considerations is essential for our country's future prosperity and growth. CMSCI herewith voices its support for the concept of a Council on Energy Policy. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM KNECHT, President. W. LEE DOUGHTY, Bellingham, Wash., February 22, 1973. Senator WARRen G. Magnuson, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Thank you for your reply to my letter concerning your article on energy. In regards to your comments on my proposal I felt I should expand my remarks in order to clarify the concept. I have therefore enclosed a rough draft from a magazine article which I recently wrote. I would especially like to emphasize the point that improving the environment may actually engender a decreasing need for energy, not the commonly accepted increase. Such procedures as recycling, mass transit, improved housing, capture of raw materials from exhausts and outflows and so on replace far more wasteful processes and can provide a surplus of energy for those occasional problems which do indeed require increased energy. I would also like to add that the usual "solution" proposed, that of merely raising the price of energy, may indeed help slightly but this can cause many problems which are usually ignored. Price raises are usually discriminatory against some groups, such as the poor and retired, while favoring others. However, if a system of exemptions is introduced to solve this situation massive problems of enforcement and favoritism are clearly to be expected as each group tries to get special treatment for itself. The income tax system with its myriad exemptions, loopholes, regulations and bureaucracy is an accurate model of what can be expected. A method of limiting energy growth which does not use exemptions is necessary if it is to avoid becoming another bureaucratic snare. Also, the higher prices would place further strains on the U.S. monetary system and drastically worsen the balance-of-trade problem. We would be at the mercy of any country which wished to keep its energy costs low on products in which it wishes to compete. We cannot unilateraly raise prices without wreaking economic havoc. I am well aware that a ceiling such as that which I am suggesting cannot be implemented overnight but it could be designed to be applied gradually. One way to do this would be to design a series of steps taking place over four or five years and gradually tightening the restraints. Another method could be to design legislation which states energy use may increase a certain percentage, such as 5 or 10%, thereby allowing individuals and industry a short period of time to realize the actuality of the approaching limit and to be able to ease into it rather than crashing abruptly against a wall. There are undoubtedly many other possible ways of easing into such restrictions which I have not considered. Even if such a drastic step is presently politically impossible I would urge consideration of this concept and the development of a tentative design be initiated and held in reserve so that if events prove it necessary the program would be available for adoption when needed. It should not be necessary to wait for a national emergency and the accompanying panic to begin consideration of alternative policies. We need policies developed in a calmer atmosphere which are available when the need arises. I am afraid I have taken too much of your time and will end with my thanks for your indulgence. Yours truly, LEE DOUGHTY. The environmental issues of the last few years have begun to produce an interesting response in the public stance of some groups. Rather than the flat denial of problems, which was once considered standard, we now find many business, government and scientific people giving talks and writing articles wherein they admit that we do indeed have some problems, but the problems aren't really as serious as is claimed and that such solutions as zero growth will actually cause more problems than they solve. It is pointed out at great length that we need to generate more jobs because the population is still expanding; that we need to produce more energy, as it requires energy to solve many of the problems; that we need further economic growth to produce the needed funds; that we need to speed up the extraction of natural resources to build the things needed to solve our problems and so on. This is phrased quite elaborately and, on the surface, seems plausible. However, when stripped of rhetoric and circular reasoning these arguments boil down to a version of "We do have some problems so let's do a lot more of the same thing we've been doing and that will solve them." This is obviously ridiculous but many manage to become thouroughly confused and side-tracked by such reasoning. What is missed by those who accept such statements is that the increases can only help if the majority of the increase goes to alleviate the environmental problems but, in most cases, this is impossible under prevailing conditions. Most of the increase is eaten up by the processes of producing and distributing the increase and only a tiny percentage (perhaps 1-5%) is available for the purpose of alleviating environmental or social disruptions. The increase in disruptions always races ahead of the improvements. A few areas of discussion on growth may perhaps be of interest (or perhaps it won't). Energy generation and use might be a good example to consider. We are told constantly that we need more, and as long as we accept that assumtpion then we will never have enough. However, if we were to limit ourselves to the amount of energy we now generate and require all new uses to fit within that maximum we might find some interesting processes taking place. We might find scientists and engineers actually searching for overall efficiency. We presently waste fantastic quantities of power on inefficient and unnecessary lighting, on buildings which require outrageous amounts of energy for heating and cooling because of stupid design, on transmission of energy over long distances, on inefficient industrial processes, on needless gadgets and so on and on and on. We would have to set standards of how much to allot to business, how much to industry, how much to government, how much to individuals, etc. I believe we would find, after the political power struggles, throat cutting and general mayhem aroused during the fight for allotments (I'm sure it would be a fascinating spectacle) people deciding which things are actually important to them and which are merely baubles. We would find ever increasing numbers of uses for energy, as we do now, but they would be kept within the framework of available energy. For instance, a company wishing to institute a new process or machine would be faced with the alternatives of not using the new process, of disocntinuing an old process, or of increasing efficiency to make energy available for the new process. Such a decision is not necessary now and is therefore not considered. Something of the same thing would face individuals in the home. Faced with some sort of limit on energy use they would have to decide what is actually 93-472 0-7314 important to them and they would also show a much increased desire for efficiency in new products. Such decisions could prove good both for the environment and the individual. It would not hurt most of us to become aware of what we actually consider important. Perhaps we would even begin to consider transportation as a whole system rather than merely assuming that more cars, trucks and highways are an answer. It would be difficult to justify our present ways on an energy use basis. We might possibly also begin to consider the rationale behind our methods of energy production. It has always been assumed (without proof) that the bigger the generating plant, the better. This has not taken distribution losses, problems of monopoly or environmental costs into consideration, however, and since hardly any research has been done on generating energy at its point of use there has been no way of refuting the "bigger is better" argument. It would seem that a more balanced generation method would lead to fewer stresses and possibly greater overall efficiency but, with the present goal of unlimited growth, such concepts are not about to be investigated. We would also find an increased interest in the recycling of materials and in utilizing much waste which now goes to create pollution of limits were placed on natural resource exploitation in conjunction with the limits on energy use. It requires far less energy to recycle materials than it does to mine and refine them from their natural state, so recycling becomes far more attractive. The concurrent limit on resource exploitation would further enhance the use of wastes as industry tries to continue to expand while faced with an external limit. There would be little choice but to utilize wastes and, incidentally, reduce pollution. Another area we might consider is the supposed "need' for an increasing Gross National Product It is assumed that as the GNP increases we will automatically create more jobs but this assumption is not necessarily true either. GNP covers many aspects of the economy which have nothing to do with increasing jobs. One of the best ways of increasing GNP is to just waste as much as possible. The more you waste, the more the GNP grows. It should also be pointed out that much industrial growth is now actually costing jobs because the growth is in automated equipment which displaces workers. It seems probable that in the future, industrial growth will result in a decrease in jobs. Such growth can put society in the position of allowing people to starve or to try to make up unnecessary work just to keep people busy while the environmental load is steadily increased by the proliferating machines. In fact, we are already doing much of this. In other words, GNP measures nothing which gives us any clue as to how it is affecting humanity; it is a meaningless and misleading statistic and should be discarded from our vocabulary. One way of getting use from growth is to work at improving the systems by eliminating waste and improving efficiency so that we create the potential for growth. This potential can then be applied toward solving social and environmental problems rather than worsening them as does wasteful growth. This growth potential would apply in many fields. Those who claim we must have ever greater quantities of energy or natural resources or whatever are displaying their lack of faith in man's abilities. They are assuming that zero growth in any area will cause stagnation but man is not that limited. Humanity will continue to change and grow within the new constraints and will learn to fulfill his needs in totally new and undreamed of ways. However, man will not accept the challenge of coping with a finite world until he is able to understand, in every fiber of his being, what limits mean and how to work within them and he will not experience this until he is faced with handling these problems in his everyday life, both at home and at work. It is nonsense to wait until our life support or social systems collapse to begin trying to deal with finiteness. This, of course, is a problem of tremendous magnitude which seems to cry for a degree of political leadership unknown to modern man. However, history shows that great political changes have not occurred at the top of political systems but have been recognized at the grassroots level and eventually adopted by the so-called "political leadership". Such limits as I propose therefore become the concern of all those who are interested in the problems we face. It is especially important that the scientists and technologists recognize and welcome limits as a worthy challenge to their abilities rather than fearing them but it is also necessary for all those concerned with the immense environmental and social problems which we face, regardless of occupation, to realize this necessity and begin to work toward methods of implementing limits and persuading the political system to adopt those methods. We can have an improving quality of life and more for everyone in this country only if we limit ourselves and do the hard work necessary to improve the situation, instead of pouring our energy into unlimited growth. This is the meaning of the seemingly paradoxical ancient proverb "Less is More", and until we can grasp that concept we are going to continue to worsen the situation while being lulled with assurances that just a little more growth will solve everything. STATEMENT OF CARL E. BAGGE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION My name is Carl E. Bagge. I am president of the National Coal Association, which represents the producers and sales agencies of most of the commerciallymined bituminous coal in the United States. The coal industry welcomes the opportunity to present its comments on the establishment of a Council on Energy Policy as proposed in S. 70. Today the nation is faced with an alarming energy shortage which has the potential of becoming a major crisis. For the past three decades the United States has enjoyed an unparalleled prosperity during which time we had come to assume that a limitless supply of cheap energy would be available to power our everexpanding economy. At the beginning of this decade, however, it became clear that in recent years we had been living not on fuel additions but on basic reserves, thereby depleting our real balance. Recognition of this fact came in 1970 when the threat of a major crisis demonstrated that our energy economy had shifted from apparent plenty to real scarcity. The hard reality of this tenuous situation has come home to us in the form of fuel oil shortages which currently are plaguing some sections of the country. Adding to the existing energy dilemma are forecasts of future energy demand. The National Petroleum Council projects that total United States energy consumption will probably grow at an average rate of 4.2 per cent for the next 15 years and thus will almost double the 1970 volume by 1985. The magnitude of these figures raises a serious question as to whether our present sources of energy can be expanded to keep up with the increasing total energy requirements. Statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Mines show that for 1971, oil contributed 41 percent of the total energy consumed by the nation; natural gas, 37 percent; coal, 18 percent; hydro-electric power, 4 percent; and nuclear, 0.6 percent. Based on present policies, to the extent they exist, the outlook for energy through the latter part of this century could be catastrophic. Of critical concern is the fact that oil and natural gas, which presently account for more than 75 percent of the total energy consumed by the United States, are presently in a position of declining proved reserves. This is due to the fact that we have been using up our higher grade, more accessible fuels at an accelerating rate, in preference to using our less convenient but more abundant fuel resources. Compounding the current tenuous energy supply situation are several other concerns which, taken in their entirety, are challenging the basic ability of our energy industries to grow in order to meet the nation's expanding energy requirements. The growing public demand for environmental improvement has further constricted the nation's fuel supply. Restrictive regulatory policies in the form of an unrealistically low wellhead price of natural gas and delays and uncertainties in offshore leasing for oil and gas have also had a debilitating effect on the energy base by impeding resource development. Increasing production costs have added to the already huge capital requirements experienced throughout the energy industry and new fuel utilization technology especially fuel conversion-will add even more. The growing reliance on foreign energy sources has also retarded domestic growth which is critical to meeting our energy needs. In light of this, the critical question that must be faced is whether the United States, which possesses more than adequate domestic energy resources, including virtually limitless coal reserves, can come to grips with these growing energy problems. The complexity of our energy problems and the diversity of recommended solutions can be mastered only through a rational, comprehensive national energy policy. In an age when industrial technology has proved the worth of the systems approach, piecemeal policymaking by many government hands is an anachronism. The coal industry has been at the forefront in advocating the adoption of a comprehensive national energy policy. For more than a decade NCA has continued to support those measures which it believes are essential to achieving a coordinated energy policy. |