d. Advertisement by the Edison Electric Institute, "Nobody can do more to stretch America's critical fuels than your electric companies," The New York Times, April 23, 1975

e. Article, "Energy Conservation Is Growth Management, Speakers Stress at Electric Institute Conference," Air Conditioning and Refrigeration News, June 2, 1975

ENERGY CONSERVATION IS GROWTH MANAGEMENT, SPEAKERS STRESS AT ELECTRIC INSTITUTE CONFERENCE

ATLANTA, GA.-True conservation of energy requires an investment of capital and an input of ideas, while curtailment requires no capital investment, according to R. F. Gilkeson, chairman of Edison Electric Institute (EEI).

"Conservation is growth management-both quantitative and qualitative— directed toward the wiser use of natural resources," said Dr. Douglas Bauer, of the Federal Energy Administration (FEA).

Gilkeson and Bauer were speaking at the EEI conference here, the first annual conference of the Conservation and Energy Management Division, formerly the Electric Energy Association (EEA).

"You can curtail consumption by lowering thermostat from 70°F to 65°F, or you can insulate your home and without reducing temperature, save even more fuel.

"You could curtail driving and save gasoline, or better, you could keep your car tuned, use a more efficient car, and not reduce your driving, and still save gasoline," Gilkeson said.

Conservation has no limit, "and you can conserve to the point where you save 100% of your heating fuel by using nothing but solar heat. You can go to any extreme if you have the creativity and money. Conservation obviously requires planning, skill, and capital," he said.

During 1974, there was no growth on a national basis on electricity outputfor the first time since 1945-and Gilkeson said this was because of conservation efforts, the economic slowdown and milder weather.

"Depending on the overall economic situation, growth in electricity sales may be up about 5% in 1975, and we anticipate the long-term annual increase may be on the order of 7% in the following years," he said.

In space heating, this shift is already becoming evident. Electric heating systems were installed in 42% of all new single-family homes in 1973, compared with 36% in 1972. In 1974, the percentage was approximately 47%.

Gilkeson said that the construction of new generating facilities, particularly those which use nuclear fuel and coal are "critically important to the fulfillment of our responsibilities in meeting energy demands," but one of the phenomena of 1974 was an "onset of a rash of deferrals and cancellations of generating capacity."

He said private utilities now have a total generating capacity of about 375,000 megawatts, of which 30,000 are nuclear.

Gilkeson added that the nationwide average fossil fuel costs is on the order of four times that of nuclear fuel.

"And, as we look at the goal of energy independence, it is important to recognize that a single 1000 megawatt coal or nuclear power plant, substituting for an oil-fired plant of the same size, can save over 10 million barrels of oil per year." In discussing rate requirements, Gilkeson said there is "mounting evidence that the regulatory commissions are showing greater understanding of our rate requirements."

Dr. Bauer explained the role of the FEA, saying it is not a "regulatory agency whose boundary is laid down by law. . . We have no intention of banging into this industry and creating chaos."

He said "very substantial alterations in outlook toward electric power are going to have to occur" because the industry is entering a period of change, and the alterations are conservation programs directed toward the wiser use of

6. Materials concerning recent congresisonal activity on solar energy a. Article by Charles Stafford, "Businessmen: Solar Technology is Here," St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, May 14, 1975

BUSINESSMEN SOLAR TECHNOLOGY IS HERE

(By Charles Stafford)

WASHINGTON.-Technology to tap the sun's energy is available, but instead of developing it the federal government keeps giving grants to corporations and universities for basic solar energy research, two small businessmen told a Senate committee Tuesday.

"Solar technology is available and has been available for 20 years," Jerry D. Plunkett, president of Materials Consultants, Inc., of Denver, told the Senate select committee on small business. "There is no need to re-invent the wheel." His firm, Plunkett said, has five years' experience in development of a residential solar heating and cooling system, including a back-up coal-fired furnace offering approximately 90 percent efficiency.

"Rather than assisting us," he said, "we have found federal employees unable to understand the solar state-of-the-technology, unable to formulate reasonable plans for moving solar technology ahead, and in fact engaging in projects that were designed to keep university professors employed and off the street, and to use study contracts granted to large firms to make solar energy appear long term, remote, and unlikely to respond to our present energy crisis."

James Piper, president of Piper Hydro Inc. of Anaheim, Calif., said he developed a home heating system in 1966 that uses the hot water system to heat the house.

"I reasoned that if I could eliminate one complete system, the furnace, I might even be able to install a better system at a lower price," Piper said. "Not only did it work, but almost immediately three factors became apparent. First, it produced a clean, even, gentle heat. Second, it was impossible to run out of hot tap water. And third, the energy bills were low."

More than 7,000 homes and apartment buildings now use his system, Piper said, and in 20 houses solar energy provides the fuel.

"You would quite naturally jump to the conclusion that in a time of high energy costs disrupting our economy as they are, everyone would love us, par ticularly the government," Piper said. "If you jumped to that conclusion, you would be wrong..."

As one example of his company's problems, Piper said: "The Southern California Gas Co., has strongly marketed against Piper Hydro for the last three years, including financing a major ad campaign for one of our competitors while they were involved in a court suit trying to capture our patents. They have advised our potential customers not to use our system, including solar. We are now in the position of having the federal government finance them to compete with us. In fact, a large builder who had been negotiating with us to utilize our solar system has advised us that they are "going with the gas company instead."

Plunkett and Piper said they wanted only one thing from the government, an equal break for small business in developing solar energy.

The small company, usually formed by an investor or innovator, is better equipped for solar development than large companies, Plunkett said.

Piper said that "if GE or Westinghouse came up with a workable system right now it would hurt their profitability in other areas."

b. Article, "Solar Energy Stress Urged in Congress by Ford Aides," The New York Times, May 16, 1975

SOLAR ENERGY STRESS URGED IN CONGRESS BY FORD AIDES

WASHINGTON, May 15-The Ford administration called yesterday for an accelerated national solar energy program to save up to one million barrels of oil a day and millions of dollars a year to consumers by 1985.

56-516 O 75 Pt. 1C 61

Administration officials, testifying before both House and Senate panels, said that converting the sun s power to usable energy was a major part of President Ford's goal of United States energy self-sufficiency within 10 years.

The Federal energy administrator, Frank G. Zarb, told the House energy research subcommittee that solar heating and cooling could save an equivalent of one million barrels of oil per day by 1985.

Virginia H. Knauer, President Ford's consumer affairs specialist, told the same panel that consumers could save millions of dollars a year if solar power systems were used by utilities to help generate electricity.

c. Article by Richard Bradee, "Solar Energy Lag Blamed on Politics," Milwaukee Sentinel, May 17, 1975

SOLAR ENERGY LAG BLAMED ON POLITICS

WASHINGTON, D.C.-Solar energy development is lagging because the government gives research money to companies more interested in nuclear power, a group of unsuccessful bidders for federal funds charged this week.

The charges were made during a hearing of Senate's Small Business Committee. Sen. Gayford A. Nelson (D-Wis.) committee chairman, said that he, too, was concerned about government contracts.

"Now that, at long last, solar energy is 'in' and destined to become very big, it is the small business pioneers that are being ignored and underrated," Nelson said in his opening statement.

He pointed out that the General Electric Co. and Westinghouse Corp. have urged government grants to produce pessimistic reports about the future of solar energy.

James R. Piper of Anaheim, Calif., said that he developed a solar energy system in 1963 which has been installed in more than 7,000 dwelling units.

Government grants in the area, however, have gone to large companies, like Westinghouse, which build nuclear power plants.

"I just don't think the people at Westinghouse can put their heart and soul into producing a good solar energy system," Piper said.

Solar energy, he contended, would be less profitable than the construction of nuclear power plants.

Those who wou'd install solar systems in homes should receive some of the federal research money, according to Barney Menditch a heating contractor from Capitol Heights, Md.

Menditch represented the National Environmental System Contractors Association, a group of businessmen who install heating and air conditioning equipment.

He told the committee that the local contractor could become "a hero in his community" if he were trained to be an expert on solar energy.

Untrained contractors, he said, are likely to advise businessmen that solar energy systems are too expensive and that they do not work.

d. Article by Harry B. Ellis, "Solar Heat? Builders Say It's Ready Now," the Christian Science Monitor, May 20, 1975

BIG GOVERNMENT CHARGED WITH FAVORING BIG BUSINESS-SOLAR HEAT? BUILDERS SAY IT'S READY NOW

(By Harry B. Ellis)

Small builders across the U.S., with dozens of operating solar homes to their credit, insist that solar heating is available for the average home owner to enjoy right now.

These builders, who have designed, built. and installed their own solar heating systems, claim the federal government has largely ignored their efforts, however.

"My son and I," writes Robert L. Heaton, consulting engineer of Berkeley, California, "have built and are operating a retrofit solar heating system on a home in Berkeley. Neither HUD, NSF, NASA, nor ERDA, all duly notified, have been interested enough to see solar energy being used."

Mr. Heaton, one of many responding to an article on solar heating in this newspaper, referred to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Energy Research and Development Administration-federal agencies involved in Washington's current new look at solar energy.

Other builders claim that the government's solar research program, which may total $100 million in fiscal 1976, overlooks work already accomplished by small business and aims at getting giant corporations into the solar act.

Officials of ERDA and the Federal Energy Administration (FEA) say systems built by small firms are too expensive, and that only companies like General Electric and Westinghouse can mass-produce solar hardware for wirespread use. "If a home owner," replies Bruce N. Anderson, builder of solar homes in New Hampshire, "with a properly designed house of moderate size spends more than $5,000 to do 50 percent or so of his heating with solar energy, then the system was designed improperly."

Harry E. Thomason, who builds solar-heated homes in the Washington, D.C. area, says his patented "Solaris" system costs about $4.500 to install, and provides 65 to 75 percent of heat needed “on cold winter days."

Big business, meanwhile, is dragging its feet on solar energy, according to Sens. Gaylord Nelson (D) of Wisconsin and Thomas J. McIntyre (D) of New Hamsphire.

The "suspicion was almost unavoidable," said Senator Nelson, referring to General Electric and Westinghouse, that these "giant firms, because of their large investment in nuclear technology, hoped that solar energy would not gain rapidly."

He cited studies by GE and Westinghouse, financed by $500,000 grants to each by the National Science Foundation, predicting that "within the next 25 years solar energy would be providing only 2 to 4 percent of total (U.S.) heating and cooling needs, when nuclear energy-a far more complex technology—had jumped from zero to 6 percent as a source of electrical power in less than 20 years."

Nuclear technology, notes Raymond D. Watts, general counsel of the Senate Small Business Committee, is "big business technology," whereas small business is uniquely equipped to develop solar heating and cooling hardware.

"The power establishment," says Mr. Watts, "is dragging its feet, because if we went too far, too fast [on the development of solar energy], the disruption of established technology would be too devastating."

For whom? For electric power utilities, manufacturers of nuclear reactors, and makers of electrical equipment, among others, says Mr. Watts. Beyond that, he believes a major commitment to solar technology could "change the shape of economic, cultural, social, and esthetic" concepts in the United States.

"Such a threat [to existing investment in older energy technology] may, in fact," says Senator Nelson, “be present in any rapid development of solar energy technology. But the task of policy makers . . . should be to find ways to make the transition as painless as possible, not to arrest or unduly delay a transition already long overdue."

Small builders in all parts of the U.S., meanwhile, are putting up solar buildings at far less cost than the $10,000 per unit claimed by one Washington official. Dr. Thomason's costs are about $4,500 for a medium-sized home. Mr. Anderson claims $5,000 should be tops. The solar system for a three-story, 2.300-square foot house being built by Interactive Resources, Inc., of Point Richmond, Calif., costs $4,000 installed.

e. Editorial, "Don't Buy a Solar Furnace." Wausau-Merrill, Wis., Daily Herald, June 4, 1975

WAUSAU VIEWPOINT-DON'T BUY A SOLAR FURNACE

Spring is the time to beware of salesmen who offer to improve your house for a song, because the price may go up, up, up.

Among the salesmen out this spring is U.S. Sen. Gaylord Nelson, who is selling solar furnaces. While he isn't quoting prices to the householder, he is making great promises for the future.

The senator and his staff, plus experts in government agencies, add up the "more optimistic estimates of the contribution that solar energy might be making