THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 1985.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

WITNESS

THE HONORABLE CLAUDINE SCHNEIDER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Mr. YATES. Mrs. Schneider, we're delighted to have you. Tell us what it is you want our Committee to do. Your statement will be made a part of the record.

Mrs. SCHNEIDER. Fine, if my entire statement will be a part of the record, I will summarize my key points.

Mr. YATES. That's wonderful.

Mrs. SCHNEIDER. I'll keep it short and sweet.

As a member of the executive committee of the Northeast-Midwest Coalition, I'd like to present four recommendations on their behalf, and then I would like to highlight a particular recommendation that is along the same lines as the other four, but is my own initiative that I would plead that you protect.

Overall, I am very much concerned with the conservation budget. The radical cuts that have occurred over the past four years in energy conservation, I believe, are quite substantial. The Northeast-Midwest Coalition supports the freeze of all of the energy programs, including the energy conservation programs.

Secondly, I'd like to point out that on behalf of the NortheastMidwest Coalition, we are concerned about the administration's proposals for use of oil overcharge escrow funds, and urge the rejection of the administration's proposal, because we believe that the consumers are the ones who bore the overcharges, and therefore, we ought to provide some restitution to them directly for these overcharges.

Thirdly, I would like to comment on the cuts in the renewable energy R&D programs. As a member of the Science and Technology Committee I can tell you that the reductions there have been substantial, the impact of research and development on energy conservation and renewable forms of energy, not only on the Northeast-Midwest region of the country, but throughout the United States has been significant, and unless we increase our reliance on a diversity of energy types, our national security and our energy security remains questionable.

Fourthly, the Energy Information Adminstration is also an area that has been slated for significant cuts, and I am hopeful that you will in that area also maintain a freeze.

Finally, I would like to bring to your attention what I consider to be a far sighted action that was taken by the Science and Technology Committee. We have unanimously authorized a three year, $4 million least cost planning initiative. It begins with $1.5 million for the fiscal year 1986 budget.

Specifically what the least cost planning initiative does is that it provides analytical and informational data bases to help utility commissions and utilities to identify a wide range of different low cost options and technologies that are available.

One of the biggest problems our country faces today, particularly in the area of science and technology is that we have the technolo gy to solve many of our problems, particularly energy diversification. However, we are not transferring this technology to the con

sumer.

Here is a case where we can transfer this information, this data base, to the utilities for them to help reduce the cost to the consumer, the cost of electricity.

The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners has taken as a resolution, and has made recommendations that these least cost approaches be passed. And they did this last year at their annual convention.

The resolutions noted the enormous opportunities that these efficiency investments provide by holding down utility bills, and also the role that they play in increasing environmental quality and also our national security.

The only other thing that I might mention is that the national utilities have appealed to Congress to assist them in this process for several reasons. First of all, Congress has funded the research and development to computerize much of the technology cost curves and the scientific breakthroughs in these efficiency meas ures already at the Lawrence-Berkeley National Laboratories.

Unfortunately, that information is not being generated.

Secondly, it makes strong economic sense to provide this technological information rather than have each State reinvent the wheel and assume that State funds would in fact be available for information generation.

And, thirdly, it requires a relatively small sum of money. $1.5 million in an overall DOE budget of $12 billion is nothing to even wink at.

Finally, I would like to strongly urge you as the Chairman and other members of this Subcommittee to support this program and to make sure that it does make its way throughout the entire Congress. I am hopeful that the Senate, too, will be receptive to this idea. I think it is a progressive approach to minimizing energy costs for consumers, increasing our energy security overall, and I happen to think it's a pretty good idea. I hope you will, too.

Mr. YATES. Thank you very much. I appreciate you coming in and tell us what you did.

Mrs. SCHNEIDER. Great.

[The statement of Mrs. Schneider follows:]

前言

530 House Annex No. 2, Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 226-3920

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

As a member of the Executive Committee of the Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition, I welcome the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Coalition concerning a variety of issues in the fiscal 1986 Interior Appropriations bill. My colleague, Representative Dennis Eckart of Ohio, will present testimony to the Subcommittee relating to the Coalition's strong interest in clean coal research and development and the Clean Coal Technology Reserve. The areas on which my testimony will focus include state and local conservation programs, renewable energy and conservation research and development, conservation policy and analysis, the Energy Information Administration, and the administration's proposed use of oil overcharge funds. In addition, the Coalition continues to support funding for preliminary feasibility studies of district heating and cooling projects. Eighty proposals for such projects were submitted to DOE's Integrated Community Systems program from our region. Many of our cities have a strong interest in the potential offered by district heating and cooling.

Bany

The Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition was formed in 1976. It is a bipartisan organization consisting of nearly 200 members of the House from the 18 states of the region. The Coalition seeks to inform its members of the ramifications of various policies upon the region, and to affect those issues of greatest importance to states in the Northeast and Midwest.

Earlier this year, in testimony before the House Budget Committee, the Coalition supported a freeze of budget authority for defense spending and most domestic programs at fiscal 1985 levels. We believe that a freeze such as the one we advocate is necesary if Congress is to demonstrate its commitment to fairness and equity, and must be accepted as the first step toward creating a reduction package.

deficit

STATE AND LOCAL CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

The administration's proposed fiscal 1986 budget calls for a 20 percent reduction in the funding for state and local conservation assistance programs and their phase-out by 1990. (The budget also assumes the use of oil overcharge funds for The Weatherization and Schools and Hospitals Programs. This is discussed later.)

These programs

-

the Weatherization Assistance Program (currently funded

at $191.1 million), the Schools and Hospitals Program ($47.2 million), the Energy Extension Service ($9.8 million), and the State Energy Conservation Program ($23.5 million) already have absorbed very substantial cuts over the last few years. These programs promote energy efficiency, which is the most cost-effective and fastest means of energy production, as well as the energy source most readily available to our region. That makes these programs especially important to the states of the Northeast and Midwest, which face the highest energy costs in the country, produce less than one-third of the energy they consume, and have a large low-income population that, for the most part, resides in older, energy-inefficient housing.

The programs are cost-effective, help meet important needs, and, with the exception of the Weatherization Program, are highly leveraged. The Coalition would argue that these are precisely the kinds of energy initiatives we should be funding not eliminating. To reduce these programs even further would cripple them and lessen substantially the positive economic effects they engender. At the same time, it is obvious that funding for these programs constitutes a very small percentage of the DOE budget while providing a significant payoff in helping to meet national goals of reduced energy consumption. In other words, the Coalition believes that cuts below fiscal 1985 levels are penny-wise and pound-foolish. freeze in appropriations at least would allow core programs to be maintained.

A