Date: 1984-07-30
Speaker: RALPH M. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for yielding time to me. As the Members in the House know. this legislation is the product of over a year of debate between the gentleman from New York [Mr. OTTINGERI and myself. I introduced legislation last year to repeal the Residential Conservation Service and the Commercial and Apartment Conservation Service. That bill. H.R. 3966. was the subject of extensive hearings before the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power of which I am a member. Today. I stand before the House after long and tireless negotiations with Chairman OTTINGER and Chairman DINGELL. with a piece of legislation which balances many of the original concerns H.R. 3966 addressed and many that were addressed in H.R. 5467. Chairman OTTINGRS legislation. This effort represents a true compromise by both parties. Clearly. American utility consumers. utilities. and States. should view this legislation as for better than the current law. The Committee on Energy and Commerce thought so highly of this bill that it reported it out unanimously. In reviewing the long list of those organizations which have endorsed H.R. 5946 since it was introduced. I believe my colleagues will find an unusual alliance. Let me enumerate seine of the supporters of this legislation: The American Gas Association. the Vierra Club. the Edison Electric Institute. the Environmental Policy Institute. the National League of Cities. the American Public Power Association. the Consulting Engineers Council. the U.S. Council of Mayors. and the United Methodist Board of Church and Society to name just a few. Many of you rightly ask. what specifically does this legislation do? First. the legislation reduces Federal regulation by repealing the Commercial and Apartment Conservation Service. Second. the legislation provides more flexibility to State by providing the option to a Governor or lead energy agency of a State to certify an alternative plan for their respective State. Third. the legislation promotes energy conservation by providing targets for those choosing to operate an alternative plan. allows a variety of new means of achieving conservation to be utilized. and extends the RCS program for 5 years. Fourth. the legislation will reduce utility charges currently scheduled to be billed to consumers for the implementation and start up of CACS. Under this bill. if enacted quickly. those charges will never be assessed. Fifth. the bill protects small business as it provides a list of small business protections from utility companys anticompetitive practices. Six. the legislation does all of these wonderful things without costing Americans one additional cent beyond the authorization under current law. At this time I would like to focus on some of the specific provisions. Recognizing that substantial gains have already been made in commercial properties. this legislation directs resources of States and utilities where much of the work remains to be donethe residential sector. In hearings. it was clearly reflected that CACS would be cumbersome. costly. and difficult to ascertain savings. Witnesses testified both in the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power and the Small Business Subcommittee that the free market is currently responding to the demand for energy efficient devices in the units which would have been covered under CACS. It is for this reason that the policy redirects the attention back to the residential sector where the original job has not been finished. A second major aspect of this legislation is the alternative plan which can be substitued for the current RCS requirements. In the hearings before the committee a theme continually reoccurred: We need flexibility in developing conservation strategies which are more cost effective in each respective State. Under H.R. 5946. maximum flexibility is provided for a Governor of a State to arrive at a conservation strategy which best fits their individual State. The mechanism which seeks to garner conservation in that alternative plan is the design requirements. The legislation calls for alternative plans to be designed to have as its goals 5 percent participation of the residents who have not participated in an RCS type program to date. and garner 10 percent savings In the units served. The legislation does not ascribe parameters for what approach would be best in any State. allowing for new innovative techniques to be brought forward. Despite this approach the committee recognizes the enormous variance of participation and energy savings under the current RCS program. The report on H.R. 5946 states: The wide variation in participation rates in RCS programs from State to State and from utility to utility suggest that there may be similar variations under the alternative plan. Factors that explain these variations. in addition to program design. may include climate. energy prices. density of population. previous levels of conservation in consumers homes. customer attitudes toward utilities or State governments. customer attitudes toward utilities or State governments. customer attitudes about energy conservation and customers income levels and education. In reference to energy savings the report States: As the experience with utility programs shows. the energy savings results vary widely. The reasons for this are numerous. including residents decisions. for example. to take advantage of conservation improvements by increasing the thermostat setting in a home. or a decision not to invest in conservation despite an expert energy audit. Further providing flexibility to individual States and not to penalize difficult situations. the legislation specifically prohibits a petition to be filed on grounds of inadequate implementation solely for failure to reach the 5 percent participation and 10 percent savings goals. The legislation also provides that a Governor may lower the 5 percent target to 3 percent if certain findings are present. This approach should give States such as Texas and California who have vastly differing temperature zones flexibility to comply. The bill also allows for load manage ment techniques to be utilized by electric utilities to reduce kilowatt demand during peak demand. The legislation in no way encourages or condones replacing home appliances with appliances powered by a fuel different from that used in the original appliance. That is not considered load management in and of itself. I am proud to have introduced this balanced legislation and greatly appreclate the chairman of the full committee. Mr. DINGELL. and the chairman from the subcommittee. Mr. OTTINGER. for all of their help and assistance. I feel that this is truly a balanced compromise which all parties can be proud to take back to their constituents as better policy for America. I urge my colleagues to give their full support.