Date: 1985-02-06
Speaker: RALPH M. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague. the gentleman from California . in reintroducing legislation to repeal the residential and commercial and apartment conservation services. This bill is identical to legislation I introduced last Congress which served as the basis for a compromise that. while not perfect. would have been an important step toward recognizing that the best way to promote energy conservation is through the operation of the marketplace. Unfortunately. there was not sufficient time to resolve all of the outstanding issues with the Senate before Congress adjourned last fall. so we must now start afresh to repeal these two ineffective and burdensome programs. I thing we all can agree that the residential conservation service [RCSI and commercial and apartment conservation service [CACS] were created for laudatory purposes. These programs were enacted in reaction to unprecedented increases in energy prices. RCS and CACS were intended to help lowand moderateincome families to identify costeffective conservation measures which would lower their energy bills. But these wellintentioned programs have failed. The extensive hearings on RCS and CACS held last Congress by the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power. of which I am a member. show that RCS and CACS are fundamentally unfair to the vast majority of Americas utility ratepayers. The audits that utilities are required to conduct are provided at a subsidized price. By law. utilities can only charge $15 for an RCS audit. The bulk of the costs. which may exceed $200 in certain regions of the country. are simply added to the utility bills of the 97 percent of utility ratepayers who do not participate in the RCS Program. Who is in this exclusive group3 percentof ratepayers who benefit from the subsidized audits? Certainly it is not the low- or moderateincome groups. Studies have shown that the 3 percent of utility customers who request RCS audits are upper- and uppermiddle income families. In this .way. RCS transfers income from the poor. elderly and minorities to subsidize audits of the affluent. What have we achieved with this extremely unfair program? Very little. The RCS Program has not successfully encouraged conservation. Those who do participate in the program rarely install conservation devices. DOEs evaluation of RCS concluded that the differences between the rate of adopting conservation measures between RCS participants and nonparticipants are small. This Is not surprising. High energy prices have already spurred households to alter their behavior. Most costeffective conservation measures are obvious and have been implemented by homeowners before they participate in the audits. As a result. conservation measures encouraged by subsidized energy audits have not resulted in significant energy savings. RCS has only reduced national energy use by onehundredth of 1 percent. The Department of Energy calculated that RCS participants saved only approximately 4 million British thermal units [MBtu] more than nonparticipants per year. Each of the 4 MBtu saved by RCS participants costs on average almost $84. This means that the RCS participants only saved 2.8 percent more than nonaudited utility customers for an annual savings of about $35. This is hardly costeffective in light of the cost of the conservation measures and the cost of the RCS audit. . The notification requirement for the RCS program has expired. thus sunsetting this ineffective and unfair program. Nevertheless. this bill would make the technical change of removing the RCS language once and for all from the books. The Commercial and Apartment Conservation Service Program suffers from the same flaws as the RCS Program and is likely to result in even greater inequities. Like RCS. CACS audits will subsidize the affluent at the expense of the poor and the elderly. The subsidy. however. will be even larger than that provided under RCS. Comprehensive energy audits of large or multitenant buildings are far more complicated and costly than audits provided for single family dwellings under RCS. It is also likely that CACS will be even less effective than RCS. A landlord has little incentive to install conservation measures when the cost of utilities are passed on to renters. On the other hand. renters are unlikely to invest in modifications which will improve the value of their landlords property and which will pay off over a period of time longer than the renters tenancy is certain. Also. renters are unlikely to invest in measures whose effectiveness is contingent upon other renters adopting similar conservation measures. This is particularly true in light of the dismally low rates of participation likely to be encountered. Further. as with RCS. the likelihood that those few who do participate will install conservation measures is quite small. The marketplace has already insured the implementation of costeffective conservation measures. Businesses. owners. and entrepreneurs have a financial incentive to install costeffective energy conservation measures. Lower utility bills enhance the value of commercial property. Mr. Speaker. the best way to achieve energy conservation is not through the imposition of burdensome regulations and the Federal mandate of subsidized energy audits. An unfettered energy marketplace will achieve energy savings without the harm and exposure to ratepayers associated with RCS and CACS. We recognized this fact last Congress when the House voted for the compromise measure that would have repealed CACS. For this reason. I urge my colleagues to support quick action on the legisla* tion I am introducing today. CACS is only now getting off the ground. Timely consideration of this legislation will reduce utility charges currently scheduled to be billed consumers for the implementation and startup of CACS. Under this bill. if enacted quickly. these charges will never be assessed. I cannot overemphasize the need to act quickly on this matter. We can still act to stop CACS before it too joins the ranks of those Federal programs acknowledged as unnecessary and burdensome. but almost impossible to stop.e .