NGLONC PRQPER%§R ‘Y? 1% stir 5%. 3'»; F t 1.3-; ~-, r ‘JNRARK !§'h‘i:'W"?U §:.5fIiy:g3v~3jfia V‘! 1"‘ ~ . V. V’ ‘ ‘ . 1 r-~._, _W_ ‘ ““““'5fi-27".’.-lK..'@ "7" 4 .nrv'.‘;‘ ' - - e‘ I V .‘ ‘,>. .' '1 .I““ - ;. \_ “ A _. u 1 5‘, ‘x:‘;\~~,« V ' ' “ IQ. _-' 7 ‘ . . n~. \ _ vm .» .».s = 1 '. : .5 .' 3 " ': . '~a r-A’ . ...‘ ’ ‘J. . ‘. ’I‘‘ P f \\||\\\W \II§1ififlg1@{1\fi§1Wu3‘i;1iLuu1i[§fi;|fliiailnu am CONSERVING ENERGY RESOURCES: THE REAGAN BUDGET AND THE FUTURE FEDERAL ROLE ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB7502O AUTHOR: Gary J. Pagliano Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM — ‘DATE ORIGINATED 03/05/75 DATE UPDATED O3/02/82 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0311 . I. 1 .' x I} ‘ .. ," ‘ xv ’_'. ya > V‘. .. -. -4. x:' ma; Ivv .;. 3'3‘ , .‘ -t u. -. 5‘ , E \.._ - . . ‘ - _ .. , .. I -’ , 5.‘. s. 5. oglsl ag ‘n)'m-v‘ 0' fir 1.1%. Q‘ .3 )2’ e‘ ‘n - “M' ; ‘On- - "9 o ,— . : x’ J A-;~>;~t4 ,3‘; 7.. I -1- 4-‘ 1.) 5*. .1 .. -55. «.4. :54 A "- x - V I t w . _., .p. ,3 . r.,. /n . (80 pp - - '« .‘2 -. . ’ E‘ f .5 H W 3'. l .4 _‘.. N’ 4.”: .-. o \ ' 4 _,A‘ «:1 W ‘ y‘ _ 1.: at- V 4 v "3 - /‘ \ :91 (i .' . 4,“ 3. ~ , ...., I x? a ’ 3- J.- . ' ’ '\ av. .1 0 ' ‘as ', .9. L ._ , «‘_V .7 _\ ,4. 1' y no‘ .v, I 5 . (9 f an 4.. ,-'1 .' ’1. _ , .. ,»‘, ‘Q m an ‘ I .4 ‘- -. t: .~. . _. 3 . ‘ . 5-‘ ..- ‘ 50’? “-17. ..‘p 43.; .3 .. 8* r. .... .'.. u..‘ . .z.': ...x. ~»..- . " mm ' I: Y . .4, '- ‘ . '-:r» | .3 / u.. \_u /’ I \, s o . § ¢-:11 . I ‘ ._,‘ ~ . I _ w - .. W», .;p Jain 0+ ' 5‘ .,'_».4. u- , . 3- ‘, --‘ uh. q -. 1 . .~ : an 9 -I 3,‘ Iv” _ mi» -~ “~.. ».-..—.x.*._ H .7; .1. \ I up‘ -, um V. -—‘»;}«< ~~r; --. .«.- , - ".‘;-‘:‘.'.'-‘ $¢r~0'\ "I ‘L ‘.. ...'. :1, 1.‘. i ‘ 2" ’ .-.J ‘..x v ‘hr 1. ' ..s < .1 -'7 ‘L. .oU-V \ : ‘ I 1 .. v , , a. .,- " -. 9 -,. ‘, ~ . . . _- .:z§:..- —;r_«-.~ ~.- -m'.;*.,r.. *'- m_ V, . L. . .. ~.. x; V . « "5 J. 4 - -.- A .. I‘) -~,.. 8», ~ ~§'4‘\ ‘'13.’: Gr‘: ‘pit-1!! - .' /~ r >_; «r .- 5; - an --' »~ .~ '- ». «)4 ~‘. ‘Tu, .- ‘Y #15 ‘ * ... . . ', 3'3. ;’¢4&.....‘,.o , . . vu)-ov J.‘ «Department of Housing and Urban Development. CRS- 1 1375020 UPDATE-03/02/82 ISSUE DEFINITION During the period 1974-1980, the U.S. Congress, prompted energy prices, scarce oil supplies and greater U.S. dependence on foreign oil, passed a series of energy conservation measures. These measures were designed, first, to convince U.S. consumers that they should practice energy conservation and, then, to show consumers the best ways to conserve. The measures included information transfer programs, economic incentives, some regulation, and substantial research and development (R&D). A combination of other factors” such as higher energy prices, lower economic growth, and supply shortages due to two Middle East wars (Iranian Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War) has resulted in impressive energy savings. in the United States. The important question, for the 97th Congress is what effect have Federal energy conservation programs had on the energy savings in the U.S.? Addressing this very complex question will assist in reviewing the Reagan Administration's proposal for significant reductions in Federal conservation programs. The issue is what should be the future Federal role in energy conservation? (See also IB8l09l.) by much higher BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS Beginning with the 94th Congress and each Congress, four major bills were enacted conservation programs. The Acts were: Act (P.L. 94-163), Energy Conservation National Energy Conservation Act (P.L. 95-619), and the Energy Security Act (P.L. 96-294). Most of the programs were voluntary in nature and were placed in the Department of Energy (DOE) for implementation. Notable exceptions include the Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS) and the Solar Energy and Energy Conservation Bank, both of which would be administered by the Both programs though, as is the WOUIC3. be eliminated under the continuing with containing a the Energy Policy and Production Act (P.L. 95-385), succeeding number of energy and Conservation case with many of DOE's conservation programs, Reagan budget proposal. - The Energy Conservation Budget The Reagan Administration has emphasized an energy supply-side policy in conventional fuel development and, as a result, is significantly reducing the Federal role for conservation and solar energy. With the decontrol of oil, it is felt that many Federal conservation and solar programs are unnecessary; the rising price of energy would be sufficient incentive to promote conservation and solar energy commercialization. Total reductions in the conservation budget will total I$2.4 billion by the end of FY86. This represents program outlay reductions of about 30% in FY81 and 80% in FY82. Under the latest proposed budget, new budget authority for R&D would be cut to $17.5 million in FY83 from $143.8 million table below). Research programs in the buildings and community system, industrial and transportation areas would be terminated. Energy conservation grants to State and local governments would be effectively eliminated with a funding level of $4.2 million, down from $231 million in FY82 and $402 ‘million in FY81. conservation in FY82 (see CR5“ 2 IB7502O UPDATE=O3/O2/82 Conservation program reductions would fall into three categories: technology development, regulation and information, and financial assistance (grants) to State and local governments. The reductions for FY81 and FY82 are summarized below» CRS- 3 IB7502O Table 1 Administration's FY83 Congressional Budget Request Summary of Estimates by Appropriation by Major Category Energy Conservation (in millions of dollars) UPDATE-O3/O2/82- FY81 FY82 FY83 Actual Estimate Request BA B0 BA B0 BA B0 Research and Development Buildings and Community y Systems 91.3 86.5 47.7 74.7 -- ~- Industrial 69.6 43.7 28.8 48.6 -- -- Transportation 105.1 112.3 58.9 61.8 -- -- Multi-Sector 26.5 20.1 16.4 22.3 17.5 98.1 Subtotal 291.5 262.6 151.9 207.4 17.5 98.1 Grant Programs State and Local 402.3 465.4 231.9 503.9 4.2 223.4 Energy Impact 1 Assistance 10.0 14.6 -- 25.0 -- 14.1 Subtotal 412.3 480.0 231.9 528.9 4.3 237.5 other Feasibility 496 07 -’_ 309 -'_’ -'-’ Subtotal, Energy Conservation 709.3 743.3 383.8 740.2 21.8 335.6 FY81 Deferrals -- —- 240.8 -- —- -- Total, Energy Conservation 709.3 743.3 143.0 21.88 335.6 CRS— 4 1375020 UPDATE=O3/O2/82 Research and Development As seen in the above table, the R&D program for energy conservation is reduced significantly. The Administration's R&D policy is to pursue only high-risk, long=term. broad technology development which the private sector has historically been reluctant to conduct, but which has a high potential for energy savings. Such programs which are outreach in nature, near-term or too product-specific, will be terminated because the Administration feels that these programs can be commercially viable without government assistance. Some specifics follow in each program sector. Building and Community System (including retrofit)_ The purpose of the Buildings and Community Systems program under the Carter Administration was to both increase the rate of improvement in energy efficiency in the Nation's inventory of ibuildings and to develop and implement techniques and incentives for more efficient use of energy in community systems and consumer products. The Reagan Administration terminates such programs as the Residential Conservation Service and the community technology and consumer product programs (see Table 2, below). CR8- 5 Table 2 Building Conservation =New budget Authority Building Systems Buildings Residential Conservation Service Community Systems Community Technology Small Business Urban Waste Consumer Products Technology and Products Appliance Standards Federal Programs Analysis and Technology Transfer Federal Energy Management Program Direction Captital Equipment SUBTOTALS $,9l.3 IB7502O UPDATE-O3/O2/82 (in millions) FY82 A ro 19.0 FY83 Base l9.0 F" C) I§ O (.0 0 o O‘ G ‘.0 G (D $ FY83 Reg. Q00 9 9 CO OO‘O CO CO on on CO CO CRS- 6 IB75020 UPDAmE=o3/02/82 The Residential Conservation Service required electric and gas utilities to perform "energy audits for its customers‘ homes if asked, to assist customers in "weatherizing," and to inspect the results. This program had had strong congressional backing both when enacted in 1978 and last year, when it was changed (by the Energy Security Act) to also require utilities to provide financing for the weatherizing program. The community technology program objective was to develop integrated energy system for whole communities. The idea was to utilize energy efficiently with little waste or adverse impact on a community. Consumer products program included Federal R&D to make products‘ more energy efficient and the appliance standards program. The Administration terminated the appliance standards and the building energy performance standards (also in this budget section) because of its belief that they imposed a heavy burden on private industry. ‘ Industrial Virtually all of DOE's industrial conservation program is eliminated” in the Reagan's budget (see Table3). Waste energy reduction in Industrial process efficiency Industrial cogeneration Implementation and commercialization Program directions Capital Equipment SUBTOTALS CRS- 7 Table 3 Industrial Conservation IB7502O UPDATE-O3/O2/82 =New budget authority (in millions) FY81 A ro $24_7 1803 16.5 0 FY82 A 1'0 FY83 Base FY83 Reguest CR8» .8 IB75020 UPDA'I'E=°O3/O2/82 The Reagan Administration believes that the rising cost of energy and the increased demand for energy efficient products will stimulate industry to become more efficient through implementation of cost~effective technologieso The Administration also maintains that this rising cost and demand will result in the development of nearwterm, product-specific technologies by the private sector. (See also IB8lO06 and IB8l09l°) Transportation when the Office of Transportation Programs was created, it had two overriding objectives: (l) to reduce energy consumption within the transportation sector; and (2) to reduce that sector's dependence upon petroleum. The Reagan Administration terminates all new budget authority “(see also IB74087 and IB8l09l). V Table 4 summarizes the proposed budget cuts. CRS~ 9 Table 4 Transportation Conservation IB7502O UPDATE-03/02/82 New budget authority (in millions) FY81 A ro . Vehicle propulsion technology development $55.9 Electric and hybrid vehicle R;DpTpE Transportation systems utilization 4.9 Alternative fuels utilization 4.5 Program direction l 2.9 Capital Equipment l.l SUBTOTALS FY82 A P0 12.5 18.8 FY83 Base 12.5 18.8 FY83 Reguest 0.0 CRS=lO IB7502O UPDATE=O3/O2/82 Multi-sector Conservtion multi—sector activities, can be grouped into two major program areas. One concentrates on encouraging individuals and small businesses to develop and demonstrate small-scale, energy=related technologies which match local and community energy resources and requirements. It also provides support to small businesses and individuals for the development of energy-related inventions. Although most of these individual ‘projects are small, they were to show promise of achieving substantial energy savings and very high benefit-cost ratios for the Federal investment involved. The other major activity area is concerned with applied basic research and exploratory development on advanced energy »conversion and utilization technologies. Projects could be transferred to the transportation, industry, and buildings and community systems programs for engineering development and demonstration if technical and economic feasibility has been established. Table 5 Multisector Conservation New budget authority (in millions) FY81 FY82 FY83 FY83 Approp. Approp. Base Reguest Appropriate Technolo9Y $12.0 2.9 2.9 0.0 Inventor's Program 5.8 4-8 4.8 0.0 Energy Conversion and Utilization Technology 8.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 Program Direction 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 Capital Equipment ’ . 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 SUBTOTALS 26.5 8.2 8.2 0.0 Grant Programs This program was to channel Federal funds to State and local governments to undertake conservation measures. These grant activities included: * Energy conservation retrofitting measures in school and hospital buildings; * Weatherization assistance to low-income persons, _particularly elderly and handicapped persons, who live in older, less energy-efficient housing; * Assisting States in developing and administering State energy conservation programs. In addition the energy impact assistance program was designed t0 provide CRS-ll y IB7502O UPDATE-O3/02/82 assistance to communities which were adversely impacted, economically, socially, and environmentally, by rapid increases in employment resulting from the development of major coal and uranium resources. These funds would be passed through t0 the Farmer's HD1118 Administration Whi.Ch dispenses the funds at the local level. CRS=l2 Table 6 Grant Programs Conservation : New budget authority IB7502O (in millions) UPDATE—O3/02/82 FY81 FY82 FY83 FY83 Aggrog. Aggrop. gggg Egg; ENERGY IMPACT ASSISTANCE $ l0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 STATE AND LOCAL Schools and Hospital Grants l50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Weatherization 175.0 32.9 32.9 0.0 Energy Policy and Conservation 37.8 15.0 15.0 0.0 Energy Conservation and Production 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Energy Extension Service 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Program Direction 9.5 6.3 6.3 0.0 SUBTOTALS 412.3‘ 54.2 54.2 4.3 CRS=13 IB75020 UPDATE¥O3/O2/82 The Reagan Administration FY83 request of $4.3 million for Conservation grant programs calls for a termination of the way in which the Department provides Federal funds to State and local governemnts. The Administration believes budget reductions are justified because rising energy costs and substantial Federal rax credits have motivated individuals, businesses and other institutions to undertake major conservation efforts. Decontrol of oil prices and continuation of tax credits are also expected to accelerate these trends. Current public awareness of energy conservation benefits and the high level of private investment in energy conservation, they also believe, show that grants for State energy offices and public outreach programs do not warrant Federal support. e Budget Overview: The Administration's Real Intent on OUtlaYS? The Reagan Administration proposes to all but wipe out new budget authority for energy conservation programs in FY83. Although this is a continuation of the major reductions in new-budget authority in FY82, many conservation programs should remain intact at least for FY82 and possibly FY83 because of the funds already appropriated to these programs in FY82 and previously. If, however, the Administration makes additional proposals to rescind or defer budget authority already legislated (i.e., appropriated), programs could then face termination this year. It should be stressed that the Administration's high estimates for outlays in FY82 and FY83 (see Table 1) show that large amounts of already appropriated funds are not spent. The most plausible explanations are that the Administration is either: (1) planning to scale down or eliminate the program before spending appropriated funds, or (2) has slowed the authorized spending rate so that management problems with some of the programs could be corrected. For example, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has pointed -out management problems with the weatherization, and schools and hospitals grant programs. Administration estimates also show that the number of personnel administering these conservation programs drops dramatically in FY82 and FY83 (257 and 103, respectively) when compared to FY81 (383). To clarify the Administration's objectives for programs with current funding, the following questions might be asked: (1) does the Administration intend to spend conservation funds at the level of the outlays estimates; and (2) if so, will there be adequate personnel to administer these programs? For example, in FY82 outlays are projected to be similar to FY81 expenditures; however, the personnel level is projected to decrease by 33% from FY81 to FY82. The Future Federal Role Traditionally, a main issue when the role of government changes is the degree to which it should change. The Reagan Administration has proposed a dramatic change in the Federal energy conservation role -- reducing the role from extensive involvement in technology development, regulation and information, and financial assistance to State and local governments, to a role of only slight involvement in R&D. In analyzing the program reductions in the new budget, it is readily apparent that the "free market" philosophy cRs—14 1375020 UPDATE-O3/O2/82 has dominated the Administration's thinking in developing this new role. Furthermore, one could argue that the proposed program reductions are almost solely based on one factor -- the free market concept -- without considering a number of other factors. The Congress, in evaluating the proposed Reagan budget and the resulting program reductions, might consider a number of other factors. One such factor is program effectiveness. A measure of program effectiveness is comparing benefits from a program to its costs. As a rule, the greater the public benefit per dollar invested in a Federal program, the greater the tendency should be to keep the program. Another factor which might be considered in evaluating programs, is whether or not important objectives of U.S. energy policy remain intact. One such objective is to reduce dependence on foreign oil imports. Over the last year, the U.S. reduction in oil imports has been impressive -- imports have decreased by almost 2 million barrels of oil per day. But what about the ability of the U.S. to cope with a major oil disruption? The Emergency Energy Conservation program, which the Reagan budget reduces significantly, was established to help States cope with emergency energy shortages. This perceived need, one could argue, continues to exist for the States, especially since many reports, such as the GAO's study on DOE's reorganization of energy contingency planning, show a lack of planning and organization at the Federal level to deal with such an oil disruption. And, lastly, there is the equity factor which might take into account the negative consequences of a particular policy. For example, while higher energy prices have stimulated energy supply development and energy conservation, they have adversely impacted low-income and low-moderate income energy consumers. Under the Reagan budget, programs specifically designed to help these groups conserve are being eliminated, as in the case of the Solar Energy and Energy Conservation Bank, and the low-income weatherization program. without economic help to conserve (tax credits of course are meaningless to this group). low-income and low-moderate income consumers will probably continue to pay an increasing share of their income for energy, particularly since they will lose purchasing power to invest in conservation measures as time goes on. If the Bank or the weatherization program are not the right answer, perhaps there are other answers for this group; all of which might be considered‘ in forming the new Federal role in energy conservation. ' LEGISLATION S. 1166 (Weicker et al.) National Home Weatherization Act of 1981. Establishes a grant program to provide financial assistance to States for energy assistance and weatherization programs for low=income households. Introduced May 12, 1981; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. H.R. 3982 (Jones) Sections 12002, 12003, and l2l02. Increases the Department of Energy's 1982 authorization level for conservation research, development and demonstration activities by $70.4 million over the Administration's request. The authorization level totals $156.4 million under the Winn substitute. ‘ -. CRS-15 IB7502O UPDATE-O3/O2/82 Highlights of increasing the program budget levels include the following. The buildings and community systems‘ program was increased by $10.9 million over the Administration's request of $29.6 million. Included is $6.5 million for the urban waste program, $9 million for the technology and consumer products program, and $2.4 million for a more comprehensive district heating program. The industrial conservation program budget was increased $19.6 million which was directed at continuing activities in waste heat recovery, indi ustrial process efficiency and cogeneration. Transportation energy conservation was increased $23 million to continue alternative heat engines such as Stirling Engine and the Gas Turbine Engine. Five million dollars was added to the multi-sector area in the appropriate technology program. And finally the bill provides an extra $15 million for the Energy Extension Service which had been abolished by the Administration. HEARINGS U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Public Works and Transportation. Subcommittee on Public Building and Grounds. Review of title V of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act. Hearings, 96th Congress, lst session. Sept. 26, 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 240 p. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on Energy and Power. Energy conservation for schools and hospitals. Hearings, 95th Congress, lst session. May 16, 1977. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Residential and commercial energy conservation. Hearings, 96th Congress, lst session. Oct. 2, 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 296 p. ‘REPORTS AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS U.S. General Accounting Office. Energy conservation: an expanding program needing more direction. July 24, 1980. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 15 p. (EMD-80*82) ---—- Slow progress and uncertain energy savings in program to weatherize low-income households. May 15, 1980. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 49 p. (EMD-80-59) R ---—- The energy conservation program for schools and hospitals can be more effective; report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States. Washington 1981. 32 p. "EMD-81-47, Mar. 23, 1981" ---—- Views on energy conservation.and the Federal Government's role. Memorandum to the U.S. Congress. June 17, 1981. Washington. 5 p. (EMD-81-82) U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. CRS=l6 IB7502O UPDATE~O3/02/82 Alternative energy conservation, an economic appraisal. June 1978. 182 p. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS 02/08/82 07/31/81 03/18/81 06/30/80 11/09/78 09/13/78 08/05/78 04/20/77 08/14/76 12/22/75 -~ O3/Ol/75 -= The Reagan Administration submitted to the Congress a budget which terminates virtually all new spending (budget authority) for energy conservation programs. The Congress passed the reconciliation bill, increasing DOE's authorization level for energy conservation to $570 million. The Reagan Administration submitted t0 the Congress a budget which drastically reduced Federal spending OH energy conservation programs. The Energy Security Act (P.L. 96-294) was signed into law, creating an Energy Conservation Bank and further expanding conservation programs in the residential sector. The Energy Tax Act (P.L. 95-618) and the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (P.L. 85-619) were signed into law, creating incentives for conserving energy in residential and commercial buildings. The full Senate passed and sent to conference H.R. 5037, which included most of the President's energy conservation tproposals for residential and commercial buildings. The full House passed H.R. 8444, which included the President's energy conservation proposals for residential and commercial buildings. President Carter announced a national energy plan that included insulation and solar energy tax credits, increased funding for low-income weatherization, and mandatory conservation standards for home appliances. The Energy Conservation and Production Act was signed into P.L. 94-385 providing for conservation standards for new buildings, insulation of low-income family housing, more rapid development of state energy conservation plans, initiation of a major new demonstration program to finance conservation and renewable resource measures in existing homes, and a $2 billion program of loan guarantees for conservation and renewable resource measures in commercial public buildings and industrial plants. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act was signed into P.L. 94-163 providing for voluntary energy efficiency standards for major appliances and for Federal and State conservation plans. Congressional Democratic Leadership proposed Economy CRS-17 IB7502O UPDATE~O3/O2/82 and Energy Program; program goals include establishment of building standards and financial incentives for improvement of existing structures. Ol/15/75 -- President Ford, in his State of the Union message, requested legislation for: (l) a national mandatory thermal efficiency standard for new residential and commercial buildings; (2) a 15% tax credit to homeowners for thermal efficiency improvements; and (3) subsidies to low-income and elderly homeowners for thermal efficiency improvements. ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES Berry, Linda et al. Review of evaluations of utility home energy audit programs. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. March 1981. ’73 p. a common Cause. The path not taken: A Common Cause study of state energy conservation programs. Washington, 1980. 138 p. Darmstadter, Joel, Dunkerley, Joy, and Alterman, Jack. How industrial societies use energy resources for the future. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore and London, 1977. 282 p. ' Ford Foundation. Energy: the next twenty years. Administered by Resources for the Future. Ballinger Publishing Company. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1979. Office of Technology Assessment. Residential energy conservation, V. I. Washington, D.C., July 1979. 355 p. Schurr, Sam H. Energy in America's future: the choices before us. Published by Resources for the Future. Washington, D.c., June 1979. Stobaugh, Robert and Daniel Yergin. Energy future. Report of the Energy Project at the Harvard Business School. Random House, N.Y., N.Y. June 1979. APPENDIX A;__IHE REcQHC1_lAIIofl_EILL .__ CONSERVATION (OTHER THAN STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS) PROGRAM ar.”ff. fl%[nquss SENATE CONFERENCE The Administration asked forgl a total of about $130 for conservation programs and for the termination of certain programs. e.g., RCS. appliance standards. and industrial programs through the budget process. Rea an Bud et (including capltal equipment) Millions Bldg/Comm Sys $ 3l.ll/ ing programs, but in many cases Transportation 38.3 at reduced levels. All activi- Multi-sector 17.7 ties mandated by law will proceed Industrial l.0 according to those laws. No pro- Storage 39.0 grams were repealed but BEPS was Electric Energy made voluntary. Systems 9.9 - Minn Substitute: (including $l37.0 capital equipment) Millions Bldg/Comm Sys $ 41,800 ‘ Transportation 40,300 Multi-sector 20,000 Industrial l9,565 Storage 39.000 Electric Energy Systems 25,000 $205,665 1] Energy from Municipal waste funds for R80 in- cluded under BCS budget for FY B-82. lllll l‘lon.,-: There is also $7.9 million author- ized under joint jurisdiction with the Energy and Commerce Committee: Bldg/Comm Sys $6.5 Industrial 1.4 57.9 Funding for these programs are included in (T)-the $l billion for energy functions under the Energy and Commerce Committee (which does not contain specific line item amounts); and (2) the Winn Substitute (Science and Technology). . -- Dingell Report language to H.R. 3982 states that the bill would permit the continuation of exist- The Senate Energy Committee pro- vided within the Energy Conser- vation account (not including storage and EES) $545 million of which there is not to exceed $336 million for state and local programs to be allocated by the Senate Appropriations Conlnittee. EES and storage fall under the category of Energy Supply and Research which was increased (over the Reagan budget) by $60 million for potential realloca- tion by the Senate Appropriations Conmi ttee. CONSERVATION - STATE Ann LOCAL PROGRAMS The Conference results were to increase the House levels in all areas but Multi-sector. Com- pared to our request, in the first column, of $l37 million, the Conference figure was $234.044 mil- lion. including $67,mil- lion for Electric Energy Systems and Energy Storage .. Systems combined. and $20. million for Multi-sector. The remainder, $l47.044 million, is for conserva- tion R&D functions. For the regulatory and information programs. the Conference authorized $40 million and the Report notes that “Termination of funds was not recom- mended for any programs reconmended for termina- tion by the Administra- tion.“ Programs to be continued include RCS. BEPS and Appliance Stan- dards. Building standards (BEPS) were made volun- tary in nature. and are to be developed only as guide- lines. ‘ (PROGRAM HOUSE SENATE ' CONFERENCE The Administration asked for a total of about $l07 million, almost all of which is for schools and hospitals. No funding was requested for weatherization. EPCA and ECPA grants, or the Energy Exten- sion Service. Funding for these programs is included in the $l billion for energy functions in Energy and Conmerce, so no line-item amounts are available: Winn Substitute includes $15 million for EES. Dingell Report language to-H.R. 3982 states that the bill "would permit the continuation of exist- ing programs, but in many cases, the funding levels will be reduced." House Appropriations reported a FY 82 level of $274.500 million for these programs. ' The House Banking Cornnittee por- tion of the Latta Amendment repealed the statute for the DOE weatherization program; however, it also provides $193 million and expands the program to the Indian Tribes. Education and labor section permits up to lo percent of low-income energy. assistance funds to be used for weatherization. Action. The $336 million is down by line items. C A rI%m-lg: * Mfiweflfi . ..-',};~‘ The Energy Committee provided within the Energy Conservation account up to $336 million for state and local programs, includ- ing any authorization of appro- priations pursuant to S. ll66. The National Home Weatherization not broken S. ll66 requires states to allocate 65 percent of the funds they receive under the Act for low- income weatherization. \MA@%NfiTQN I LWMVERSHW’ s1L0w$-M0» The Conference adopted the Senate figure of $336 mil- lion to be applied to the following programs: schools/hospitals, weather‘ zation, SECP, and state emergency planning. The Report notes that this funding level is "intended to provide sufficient fund: to carry out all statu- torily mandated programs." The House repeal of the weatherization program statute was deleted, as was a specific authori- zation of $193.4 mil- lion. although "as much as" $l75 million of the $336 million may be used for the weatherization program. -No other state/ local program received earmarking, and the ma gers stated support for continuing the weatheri- zation program in DOE. The Conference also adopted a separate authorization of $15 million for the Energy Extension Service.