United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Energy, Minerals and Industry
Office of
Research and Development
Washington D.C. 20460
EPA-600/9-78-041
December 1978
v/EPA
The Section 11 Hearings
V V
ioo'
The Public Reviews the Federal Nonnuclear
Energy Research & Development Program
-------
Foreword
Section 11 of P.L. 93-577, the Nonnuclear Energy
Research and Development Act of 1974, mandates
an ongoing review of the Federal Nonnuclear
Energy Research and Development Program to
evaluate the adequacy of attention given to:
• Energy conservation methods
• Environmental protection and the environmental
consequences of energy technologies.
President Carter's reorganization transferred
responsibility for this review from the Council on
Environmental Quality to the Environmental
Protection Agency. The Office of Energy, Minerals
and Industry (OEMI) within EPA's Office of
Research and Development has been assigned the
job of conducting the review. One part of EPA's
responsibilities under Section 11 is to hold yearly
public hearings on the Federal Nonnuclear Energy
Research and Development Program.
This report summarizes the major topics
discussed at the public hearing held March 29-31,
1978 in Washington, DC. The information
presented at these hearings is a valuable
mechanism for surfacing important problems and
issues in federal nonnuclear energy research and
development. EPA plans to improve the under-
standing of these problems and issues, to confirm
their significance, and to further explore their
dimensions.
We would greatly appreciate your comments on
the issues presented in this report — or on other
issues concerning adequacy of attention given to
energy conservation and environmental protection
in the nonnuclear research and development
program. Please send your comments to:
Francine Sakin Jacoff
Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry (RD-681)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
.3
M
Steven R. Reznek
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Energy, Minerals and Industry
Editor: Francine Sakin Jacoff
Text: Keith Bentz, Jan Runyan
Illustrations: Jim Chaffee
Graphic Support: Terrie Gibbons, Bill Lebut
Technical Advisor: Dr. Carl B. Moyer
-------
vvEPA
The Section 11 Hearings
U.S. Envirormental Protection Agency
Begion 5, Library (5PL-1S)
230 S. Dearborn Street, Room 1670
Chicago, IL 60604
The Public Reviews the Federal Nonnuclear
Energy Research & Development Program
-------
-------
The Closing of the
Petroleum Age
"An era of the world's history is rapidly coming to a
close. . although we have all witnessed some of
the near term economic, political and environmental
complications of the closing of the petroleum age,
none of us can accurately forecast what the future
has in store The energy crisis may mean a
protracted and gradually worsening economic
recession, lack of opportunity for our young
people, and decreasing social mobility It may
mean rapidly degrading environmental quality and
exhausting our supplies of clean an, clean water,
and productive land. On the other hand, the
energy crisis may only mean that the cost of
energy will rise to the point where widely available
and environmentally benign sources will be used to
meet society's economic and social needs."
—Dr Stephen J Gage
Environmental Protection Agency
"A number of studies of world supplies of petroleum
and demands for same have been completed
recently. In the conclusions, all agree that the
demand for petroleum will probably overtake
supply sometime between 1985 and 1995."
—Dr. William Jones
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
"Estimates of remaining recoverable conventional
gas resources in the United States are in the range
of 700 to 1200 trillion cubic feet or approximately
700 to 1200 quads of remaining gas that could be
produced. Thus, at the current U S. consumption
rate of about 20 Tcf per year of natural gas, there
are between 35 and 60 years of conventional U.S.
gas supplies remaining to be produced."
—Dr Ben/amin Schlesmger
American Gas Association
Since the early 1900's, America has depended on
oil and natural gas to meet our energy needs But
today, with worldwide supplies of petroleum
dwindling and costs escalating rapidly, experts
predict that domestic natural gas will last 35 to
60 years at our current rate of consumption.
Although supplies of oil are not as critically limited,
we are already forced to import over 40 percent of
our oil every year — making energy one of our
country's most vulnerable resources. The facts are
inescapable: we must begin to make crucial
and very fundamental decisions about the manage-
ment of our present energy resources and the
future development of new energy sources.
But deciding which sources of energy to develop
is a more complex and difficult choice today than
ever before. We are finally beginning to under-
stand that a balance between energy development
and environmental protection is critical to our
nation's future. We now know that the choices we
make about energy will have far-reaching effects on
the overall health and welfare of our society. The
solution to our country's energy and environmental
problems is not at all clear. Still, we must
choose — no matter how difficult the choices.
Congress had already begun to realize the
urgency of the energy challenge when it passed the
Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Develop-
ment Act of 1974. This legislation authorized the
Energy Research and Development Administra-
tion — now the Department of Energy — to spend
nearly $2 billion per year on research, development,
and demonstration of nonnuclear energy
technologies.
One important goal of this program is to provide
both government and industry with accurate,
detailed information on promising new energy
sources. Without this kind of information, wise
decisions about our energy future will be
-------
gflfJV .;"'
S^'- -ft*;''>;•-•;
-------
"Annual public hearings shall be held on the
conduct of energy research and development and
the probable environmental consequences of
trends in the development and application of
energy technologies. The transcript of the
hearings shall be published and made available
to the public."
—Section 11, Federal Nonnuclear Energy
Research and Development Act of 1974
"The federal government today seems to be
addressing both energy and the environment on
the kind of either-or basis that promotes conflicts,
instead of solutions . .We have institutionalized
our differences by setting up separate jurisdictions
to handle what in the real world are interrelated
problems."
—Mr Jackson Browning
Union Carbide Corporation
"l believe a decision strategy in which environ-
mental issues play an equal role with technology
feasibility and economic costs would be most
useful. . . I also believe there is an increased need
for interagency cooperation and coordination."
—Dr Chester P. Richmond
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
". . .there needs to be a greater broad public
involvement in the initial process of RD&D
decisionmaking and a greater communication to
the various publics after the protects are com-
pleted — and I should^ indicate, in a form which
they can understand."
—Dr. Roger Caldwell
University of Arizona
impossible.
Another vital goal of the nonnuclear energy
program is to give the public a meaningful voice in
deciding how our nation's future energy needs will
be met. For it is the public who will ultimately
enjoy the benefits of wise energy choices — or be
forced to pay the price for unwise decisions.
At the 1978 Section 11 Hearings, some 45
witnesses from a wide range of industries,
universities, environmental groups, and state and
federal governments presented their views to panel
members from EPA, CEO, and a number of state
and local agencies. Although the specific purpose
of the hearings is to gather public testimony on
energy conservation and environmental protection,
many witnesses went beyond these topics to
discuss fundamental questions on the whole
process of energy research and development.
One of these issues was the need for much
greater cooperation between the Department of
Energy and environmental agencies at the federal,
state, and local levels. Another was the importance
of greatly increased public involvement at every
stage of the energy/environmental decisionmaking
process — from planning through commercializa-
tion. Of special concern among a great many
witnesses was the need to build a broad public
consensus in support of the energy choices we
make.
The Section 11 Hearings are only one step
towards building the understanding, involvement,
and consensus we need to make wise energy
choices for the future. As the following pages
clearly demonstrate, what is needed is open
communication and cooperation between all of
us — government and industry, energy producers
and environmentalists, technical experts and
concerned citizens — to solve America's energy and
environmental problems.
-------
-------
Debating Our Energy
Options
"/ find what appear to me to be perfectly credible
professionals disagreeing all over the place on
most of these new technologies."
—Dr. Don Kash
University of Oklahoma
"We are told, often condescendingly, that conserva-
tion of energy is all well and good, but that we still
need to produce energy. We agree, but we hasten
to add that the problem facing the United States, at
least, is not one of insufficient energy. Rather, it is
one of tapping enough energy sources soon
enough at acceptable economic, social and
environmental costs Conservation buys the time
to permit this. . to develop the options that we
have available now, or which we can see iust over
the horizon."
—Mr Sheldon Kmsall
National Wildlife Federation
"Now, we hear of many proposals for saving of
energy, saving of gas, saving of oil, conservation,
improving efficiency, but. . .the near term must rely
on improvement of developed or nearly-developed
technologies if the results are to be a substantial
help in the next few decades. . .There is an
economic need to get on quickly with the
expanded use of coal, to keep our industrial
machine and our national fiscal position healthy. ..'
—Mr. Earle C. Miller
Charles T. Mam, Inc.
".. .most DOE and private research has placed
emphasis on determining technical feasibility with
little truly integrated environmental assessment
efforts."
—Mr. Kevin Markey
Friends of the Earth
Before we can make sound decisions about our
nation's energy future, we must carefully weigh
the advantages and disadvantages of the options
available to us. As the testimony presented at the
hearings eloquently demonstrates, there is wide-
spread disagreement today over which energy
options are viable. Many of the witnesses who
testified are extremely well-informed people, whose
professional lives are involved in studying energy
technologies and planning how to meet our
country's future needs. Yet among these experts,
there was a striking lack of consensus on which
technologies can supply us with reliable,
environmentally safe energy to replace natural
gas and petroleum.
Likewise, there was no clear agreement among
the witnesses on the emphasis that the Department
of Energy should be placing on either energy
conservation or environmental protection. Some
witnesses argued persuasively that stepping up
energy conservation could greatly extend our
supplies of petroleum and buy us years to
develop alternate energy sources. Others dismissed
energy conservation efforts as entirely inadequate
to solve the problem and urged the Department of
Energy to pour its resources into making new large-
scale energy technologies operational as quickly as
possible.
A majority of witnesses criticized the Department
of Energy for a lack of carefully planned and
integrated environmental assessments of new
energy processes. On the other hand, a few stated
that we cannot afford to slow down the develop-
ment of new energy technologies with environ-
mental considerations because of the danger of
creating an even more devastating energy
emergency than the 1973 oil embargo. According
to this second viewpoint, if an energy crisis brings
-------
-------
"Let's not hold up development of badly needed
energy technologies until we have developed
environmental protection technologies. Alter all,
the best environmental protection equipment in the
world is no good if there isn't an adequate energy
supply to operate it "
—Mr. Ronald Wishart
Union Carbide Corporation
"When it comes to energy and environment, the
nation can't afford confusing directions or the
present policy of institutionalizing our differences.
Both legislation and regulation need to be written
and administered with the realization that energy
and environment are part of the same organic
system."
—Mr. Jackson Browning
Union Carbide Corporation
"DOE programs still suffer from an overemphasis on
high technology protects, such as synthetic fuels,
fission, and fusion. . . .although the numbers have
changed somewhat, the overall flavor of the energy
research program has not It is still biased toward
nuclear over nonnuclear options, energy supply
over conservation options, and high technology,
central/zed protects over distributed energy
options."
—Mr John Abbotts
Public Interest Research Group
". . .enormous savings in energy are available to the
U.S. right now, derived from modest changes in
energy consumption habits, using off-the-shelf
hardware, and in applications of proven
technologies "
—Mr. Cecil Phillips
The Georgia Conservancy
the wheels of society to a halt, all environmental
issues will be irrelevant anyway — at least
temporarily. Therefore, we had better be sure
of our energy supplies, and worry about making
them environmentally safe once they're in
place.
It is clear from all these conflicting viewpoints
that there is no one simple solution to our nation's
energy future. With technical experts in obvious
disagreement — often promoting a favored
technology to the exclusion of others — there
seems to be a real need to arrive at a more
balanced point of view. Many witnesses sug-
gested that the only way to achieve this is to
involve all the people who will be affected by
decisions on energy research and development.
Energy Conservation
During the hearings, the Department of Energy
came under criticism for placing too much
emphasis — and spending too much money — on
developing a few large-scale energy technologies,
and far too little on energy conservation. Several
witnesses pointed out that, even by conservative
estimates, effective programs of energy conserva-
tion could save as much as 10 to 20 percent of the
energy we consume each year. Thus, in ignoring
energy conservation, it was felt that the Department
of Energy is neglecting a strategy that could supply
up to one-fifth of our energy needs — simply by
limiting consumption. Many witnesses felt that
these energy savings could be realized at a cost far
less than that of developing a new energy
technology capable of meeting 20 percent of our
demands.
At the same time, witnesses recognized that
implementing an effective nationwide program of
energy conservation will not be simple. Even with
-------
\ • v
; S/'l \
r tarn \
k-'' -: \\
•^HVf^^A
v;^,l/^Sl^
\ "."'^JB. iKsii „//'..,".\>f
-------
" The energy industry, the universities, the various
levels of government have all failed to prepare this
nation for the impending scarcities of oil and
natural gas. . . . We have created a man in the
street who takes energy for granted — who is
incredulous and acutely suspicious of anyone who
tries to advise him that the nation's fuel tank is
getting low. He automatically assumes that if any
changes in his energy consumptive habits are
forced upon him, he will suffer some kind of
agonizing or fatal withdrawal symptoms."
—Mr. Cecil Phillips
The Georgia Conservancy
" Too much emphasis is being placed on a few
energy supply efforts, and too little on develop-
ing new ways of using energy more efficiently.
In areas from agriculture to architecture there are
many things which could be accelerated to reduce
demand and still maintain our standard of living."
—Mr. Sheldon Kmsall
National Wildlife Federation
"I think federal buildings could and should be show-
cases for conservation, for solar, and for the use of
alternative technologies. I don't see that happen-
ing quickly enough today."
—Dr. Ronald Doctor
California Conservation Development
Commission
"There is a powerful element of citizens who want to
conserve energy and who will be effective, but
these people have largely been overlooked in
present federal and state programs. The people
I'm referring to are home craftsmen. . . .These are
people who are saying, 'Help us to help ourselves.'
They need simple information that is technically
sound and tested, offered by sympathetic
teachers "
—Mr. William Partington
Florida Conservation Foundation
all the publicity given to the energy crisis, many
Americans continue to behave as though our
supplies of energy are unlimited. In spite of rising
costs of gasoline, fuel oil, electricity, and natural
gas, most people have not made significant changes
in their driving habits or the amount of energy they
use in their homes. Some unions and trade
organizations have even come out against energy
conservation on the grounds that it will cause
unemployment and business slowdowns.
Several witnesses agreed that rather than
working to change these attitudes, the Department
of Energy is in fact encouraging them by largely
ignoring energy conservation in its research and
development budget. Instead, witnesses said, the
Department of Energy should be taking the lead in
promoting conservation by using federal buildings
as showcases for energy-saving projects, and by
developing a much more extensive program of
public education and technology transfer. Specific
suggestions included small grants to local govern-
ments and public interest groups for energy
conservation projects, and workshops for architects,
engineers, and builders on ways to increase energy
efficiency. Expanded research efforts were also
recommended as a way of exploring energy
conservation in the context of economic, environ-
mental, and technical factors.
Other witnesses felt that stronger measures than
education and technology transfer are going to be
needed to alter our ingrained habits and attitudes.
Insulation, weather stripping, passive solar design,
more efficient heating systems, storm doors and
windows are all well-known ways of saving energy
that will more than pay for themselves in a few
years. Yet, most builders still do not include these
energy-saving features in their construction — and
consumers do not demand them. In the opinion of
11
-------
-------
"The public remains unconvinced of the need to
conserve energy at the cost of personal incon-
venience, unconvinced that it is wise to invest in
new technologies. The giants of the energy
industry are not in a position to profit from
conservation or the utilization of renewable energy
sources. . .As a consequence, despite the risks,
we must turn increasingly to coercive tools of
governance, combined with subsidies and per-
suasion, to wrench ourselves free of an entrenched
system of energy supply."
—Mr. Jonathan Lash
Natural Resources Defense Council
"For DOE and EPA contracting mechanisms have
progressively deteriorated to a state wherein they
scarcely work at all. While there appears to be an
adequate mechanism for launching massive under-
takings or buying a zillion pens, there is no
mechanism for dealing with, .the small business
or the creative individual. .Contract award times
of eight months to a year, after a twelve-month
planning period, are not uncommon. To initiate an
unsolicited program is almost impossible, and I've
even been told that certain programs were simply
too small to be worth doing the paperwork on.
Obviously, none of these impasses are pertinent to
energy and environmental problems which need
solutions."
—Dr. Boyd Riley
Consultant
". . .the 79 budget authorizes $1,217,000,000 for
nuclear energy. . . .we plan to spend about $620
million in 79 on coal research and production,
some of it to make the use of coal less polluting. ..
And on renewable resources, which we will not
be able to exploit unless we begin while we still
have inexpensive sources of energy, the 79 budget
allows only $400 million, including $27 million for
biomass. It seems a tragic ordering of priorities
which, if held to in succeeding years, will close off
the renewable option and leave us only a nuclear
future for as long as it lasts "
—Ms. Ellen Winchester
Sierra Club
more than one witness, the only effective way to
put energy conservation into practice is through
"coercion": laws that require energy conservation
measures, with stiff penalties for those who fail to
obey. As an example of success of this kind of
"coercion," one witness cited EPA's regulation
requiring recycling of paper in federal buildings.
This single measure is now saving the government
over $90,000 each month.
Another institutional barrier to energy conserva-
tion pointed out by several witnesses is the endless
red tape involved in dealing with the Department of
Energy and other federal agencies. Cumbersome
contracting mechanisms and formidable bureau-
cracies make it next to impossible for anyone but
large corporations to do business with the
government. Since many energy conservation
opportunities are available to individual architects
and engineers or small businesses, the unwieldi-
ness of the federal structure excludes a great
number of chances for putting energy conservation
to work.
Along with specific recommendations for energy
conservation measures, many witnesses spoke in
favor of an expanded program and budget for solar
and other renewable sources of energy, with an
implicit plea for more energy conservation These
witnesses strongly criticized the Department of
Energy's priorities as being heavily weighted in
favor of nuclear and fossil fuel technologies. This
attitude, they argued, assumes that energy
consumption is something over which we have no
control — leaving us no choice but to meet energy
demands, no matter how fast they grow. In reality,
however, we can effectively control the amount of
energy America uses through conservation. This —
in the view of many witnesses — will leave the
door open to a wide range of energy options for the
13
-------
-------
. this process of energy development should not
be allowed to wipe out unique ecological resources
on which our society is going to depend in the
future. We iust do not have that right to throw
those things away on a short term basis ..."
—Mr. William Chandler
Nature Conservancy
"We see a serious lack of sensitivity to environ-
mental issues in the Department of Energy...."
—Mr. Sheldon Kmsall
National Wildlife Federation
"Even with the best available control technology,
coal is polluting. . It imposes on society long-
term health stresses that are not yet well
understood. CC>2 from its effluents may cause
disastrous climate change,"
—Ms. Ellen Winchester
Sierra Club
". . .Federally sponsored research should not be
exclusively devoted to questions of technical
feasibility. Environmental assessment should be
made a fundamental part of any major energy
R&D effort."
—Mr. Kevin Markey
Friends of the Earth
We need to ask ourselves if zero-impact-on-the-
environment is a viable environmental goal, or an
unrealistic roadblock to the development of new
technologies."
—Mr. Ronald Wishart
Union Carbide Corporation
future by giving us more time to experiment and
explore. By ignoring conservation, many witnesses
felt that we are narrowing our energy choices by
dangerously limiting the amount of time we have to
choose.
Environmental Protection
Every witness at the 1978 Section 11 Hearings
agreed that we must protect our environment.
There was also agreement that protecting our
environment cannot be allowed to jeopardize
reliable supplies of energy. What must be
achieved is a balance between energy production
and environmental protection. But there was sharp
disagreement over how and when we can reach
this goal.
Many witnesses criticized the Department of
Energy for rushing ahead with development of
energy supply technologies without paying enough
attention to environmental protection. They argued
that the environmental dangers of some tech-
nologies — especially coal and oil shale — are
potentially so great that we owe it to future
generations to investigate health and ecological
effects thoroughly before committing ourselves to
any large-scale investment in them For
technologies that could do extensive environmental
damage, witnesses urged the Department of Energy
to give environmental assessments equal considera-
tion with the process of technology development.
Some witnesses disagreed. They said that we
cannot afford the luxury of equal emphasis on
environmental protection when our nation faces
possible crippling shortages of energy within the
next decade. According to these witnesses, we
must push ahead with the development of new
sources, even if we have to compromise on
environmental quality in the near term. If we delay
15
-------
-------
"Research to ensure protection of environment and
human health must be initiated during the early
stages, and I emphasize early stages, of process
conception and continued through operation of
demonstration facilities."
—Dr Chester Ft Richmond
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
"One of our pro/ects is to design, construct and
operate a coal gasification and demonstration plant
in Illinois. . . .We were going to break ground to
start this project this coming summer, but we have
been advised by EPA Region 5 that we must submit
a PSD application for a construction permit — and
that no way would exemptions be considered,
regardless of the R&D nature of the plant, its small
size, or its limited testing period of three years. . . .
we are probably going to have to delay construc-
tion. . It does seem a shame when the objective
is to develop means to use Illinois high sulfur coal
in an environmentally acceptable manner "
—Mr Richard Jortberg
Commonwealth Research Corporation
"The early development of our nation's energy
future requires a balanced assessment of the public
health risks associated with various alternative
systems and technologies. There is not currently
available sufficient information concerning poten-
tial health risks concerning coal utilization, and
many other types of nonnuclear energy tech-
nologies, to conduct such a balanced assessment "
—Dr. Offo Raabe
University of California
". .we may talk about the added cost to the rate
payers of providing the best available control
technology for various types of pollutants, but that
must be measured against the cost to the general
public of the health effects if those control
technologies are not implemented."
— The Honorable Andrew Maguire
Member of Congress from New Jersey
in implementing new technologies, we may get
caught in an emergency situation that will force us
to do even worse damage to the environment in the
long run.
The same conflict was expressed in discussions
of demonstration plants for new energy tech-
nologies. Several witnesses urged that basic
environmental questions about new technologies be
answered before any demonstration plants are
built — and that the only way to accomplish this is
through comprehensive preconstruction environ-
mental impact statements. Others countered that
we can't wait to build demonstration facilities until
all the environmental facts are in, especially since
one of the purposes of these plants is to generate
information on environmental impacts.
Along with these general opinions on the
Department of Energy's basic approach to environ-
mental protection, many witnesses made specific
recommendations for solutions to environmental
problems. Several called for more stringent
controls for fine particulates, and funds to develop
better control devices for hydrocarbon and sulfur
emissions. There was a strong plea for integrating
in-depth biomedical research into the process of
developing new energy technologies. One witness
recommended a biological survey of the whole
United States, similar to the U.S. geological survey.
Another witness suggested a review panel of
government, industry, and scientific community
leaders to evaluate health and environmental
impacts of all new energy technologies.
Witnesses were concerned that not enough
attention has been paid to the broad socio-
economic effects of a polluted environment. Some
called for an assessment of the total cost to the
general public of adverse health effects if controls
are not implemented on new energy tech-
17
-------
-------
we do not avoid paying for environmental
damage. It may not be noticeable, it may not seem
to affect us personally, but nature will balance
the books, nonetheless."
—Mr. Sheldon Kmsall
National Wildlife Federation
"One of the problems that is endemic to improving
environmental performance of our technologies is a
lack of market incentive to do so. .there is no
profit motive that I know of in producing a cleaner
technology "
—Dr Steven Reznek
Environmental Protection Agency
"We must not compromise or mortgage the future
health of our citizens and their environment while
we strive to achieve energy independence The
nation must learn how to use its collective wisdom
to decide what level of potential harm or detriment
is socially acceptable in exchange for the energy
produced to sustain the needs of our industry, our
cities, and a/1 our numerous institutions "
—Dr. Chester Ft Richmond
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
"For the foreseeable future, our electric power
needs can be met by only two basic energy
sources: coal and nuclear."
—Mr Robert Humphries
Georgia Power Company
"The future, beginning in a very few years, will
feature a much more diverse mix of energy sources
than in the past. The commercial energy sector
will have to operate with biomass burners, wind-
mills, mini-hydro (under 10 MW), direct solar, and
various other things, in addition to oil, gas, coal,
nuclear, and big hydro (and geothermal where
possible)."
—Dr. Marshal Mernam
University of California
nologies — especially coal-burning plants. The
message was that in making a cost/benefit analysis
of any new energy technology, we must not lose
sight of the broad economic impact of public health
hazards.
In addition, the Department of Energy was urged
to provide financial incentives to industry to
encourage private sector development of new
pollution control technologies. This kind of support,
it was thought, would remedy the lack of market
incentive that has slowed down efforts to improve
environmental performance of control technologies.
Witnesses at the hearings clearly recognized that
a goal of zero impact on the environment is
unrealistic as we switch to new sources of energy
Some trade-offs between energy production and the
environment are inevitable. The right course seems
to be to strike a balance between energy and
environmental concerns. This we can do only by
having representatives of both sides fully involved
in deciding our energy/environmental future.
Energy Technologies
Many witnesses used their time at the hearings to
argue in favor of developing particular energy
technologies. The Department of Energy was urged
to devote more research and development funds to
virtually every new energy technology of any
significance — coal gasification, solar energy, oil
shale, biomass, thermionic conversion, power cells,
wind energy, coal liquefaction, and a number of
others. In general, these pleadings reflected a basic
disagreement over whether our country should be
encouraging the "hard" or the "soft" technologies.
The "hard" technologies discussed included
large-scale centralized electric power technologies:
coal, synthetic fuels from coal, oil shale, and large-
scale solar electricity generating plants. These
19
-------
/>
-------
'. .coal must be used in the near and medium term
to satisfy the energy requirements of the United
States economy."
—Mr. Richard H. Demmy
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
"The Carter Administration's total solar budget of
$400 million is $40 million below the 'minimum
realistic' budget, and Administration officials have
not been able to develop a sound rationale for this
miserly funding level. . . .DOE should dramatically
increase its solar funding. . ."
—Mr. John Abbotts
Public Interest Research Group
. our nation's ground water resources are
between 20 and 30 times greater than our surface
water resources. They have been underutilized,
primarily due to lack of education. . .We have a
sleeping giant in energy available tens of feet
below the earth that can be utilized directly as a
nonnuclear fuel. ..."
—Dr Jay Lehr
National Water Well Association
"The government needs to encourage additional
development and demonstration of aboveground
(oil shale) retorting processes. ..."
—Dr. Thomas Sladek
Colorado School of Mines Research Institute
'. . oil shale. . is probably the last place on this
earth we have to begin looking for new energy
because of the amount of land disturbed to supply
a very limited amount of synthetic oil...."
—Mr. John McCormick
Environmental Policy Center
technologies require large capital investment, are
designed to supply energy to meet any demand,
and — except for large-scale solar — they involve
more severe environmental problems than oil and
natural gas. They also produce large amounts of
waste heat. The advantage of these technologies is
that we already know a lot about them. Our
country has decades of experience in designing,
building, and operating large-scale centralized
power systems. We know what they will cost.
What's more, much of the necessary delivery
system is already in place.
By contrast, the "soft" technologies are small-
scale and dispersed, and individual units require a
much lower capital investment. They include small-
scale solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal. "Soft"
technologies are generally assumed to be far
cleaner and less polluting than "hard" technologies,
and do not produce large amounts of waste heat.
They work on renewable sources of energy, rather
than our finite reserves of fossil fuels. In addition,
"soft" technologies tend to emphasize limiting
energy consumption through conservation and
recycling.
However, along with these obvious advantages,
"soft" technologies have a major drawback: we
have little experience with them. This means that
questions of cost — and of long-range efficiency
and reliability — remain unanswered.
Witnesses in favor of the "hard" technologies
repeatedly argued that they are the only tech-
nologies that we can implement fast enough to
meet our nation's energy needs. They claimed that
if we fail to develop coal — and to a lesser extent
oil shale — we may face very serious energy
shortages. To some witnesses, this danger is so
grave that we should be willing to relax our
environmental standards until we get these
21
-------
-------
". . .our problem of energy supply is not an 'either
or'. It is not we do coal gasification and we don't
do everything else. We need a/most everything.
Let's pin down coal gasification It looks like an
easy one."
—Mr. George Bolton
Columbia LNG Corporation
"if this country ever expects to be less dependent
upon foreign oil, gasohol is the fastest, least
expensive, and cleanest way to do it."
—Mr. Richard Merritt
Representing Nebraska Agricultural Products
Industrial Utilization Committee
"Energy storage is the most direct and clear path
to upgrade the entire national electrical system.
While not as glamorous as replacing all of the older
systems with some new space age power systems,
it offers major energy conservation benefits. "
—Dr. William J Lang
Strata Power Company
' . . .thermionic technology offers the potential for
increased fossil fuel powerplant conversion
efficiencies to 50 percent or more. . . .such
an improvement, .could result in an energy
conservation equivalent to about three billion
barrels of oil annually. .it is essential that the
federal government increase the priority given to
the development of thermionic central station
topping units."
—Dr Vic F Russo
Ad Hoc Committee on Thermionic
Energy Conversion
"The risks are less from a premature turn to solar
and other renewable energy sources than from an
effort to ride the present system until it collapses "
—Mr Jonathan Lash
Natural Resources Defense Council
technologies on-line, and then worry about making
them environmentally safe.
On the other hand, witnesses who argued for
developing the "soft" technologies stressed that
these technologies will provide inexhaustible
supplies of energy without all the environmental
pitfalls of coal and oil shale. Granted they are new,
uncertain — technically untried Nevertheless, if
we are willing to commit enough money to
research and development now, we can solve these
problems. Many witnesses reiterated that there is
no need to wait decades — that in fact, considering
the unsolved environmental dangers of coal and oil
shale, we have no choice but to speed the develop-
ment of soft technologies.
As this testimony indicates, energy and environ-
mental experts strongly disagreed throughout the
hearing over which energy options we should
develop — and how rapidly. Some even disagreed
over whether or not we should keep all of our
options open. Several witnesses felt that economic
and political considerations should limit the number
of options we choose to develop. Considering this
diversity of opinion, the fundamental issue in
energy research and development seems to be not
what to decide, but how to decide. Equally
important is to ensure that our energy choices —
besides being technically sound — will have the
public support they need to be put into effect.
23
-------
-------
Working Towards a
Common Goal
"/ would say that the strategic aspects of present
efforts on conservation are reminiscent of a
nineteenth-century military predeliction for the
frontal assaults. They amount to a frontal assault
directly upon perceived energy wastes. They do
not incorporate the more subtle and more powerful
aspects of strategy that bring indirect forces
into play."
—Dr. Charles A, Berg
Consultant
"The tendency is to emphasize needs that are
easiest to identify and define, that is, knowledge
and data needs .specific 'hard science'
disciplines, particular technologies, or specific on-
going programs. . . .Much more attention needs to
be given to the policy and decision sciences "
—Dr. Irvin White
University of Oklahoma
"We have much new knowledge, but the complex
interactions have created a greater lack of under-
standing even with this new knowledge. For
example, acceptable estimates of energy use in the
year 2020 range from several times that of today
to less than that currently used."
—Dr. Roger Caldwell
University of Arizona
"Energy decisions in this society require building a
consensus and building a political consensus. . . .
the broader public is now demanding that it be
rung in on the process of decis/onmakmg with
regard to these new technologies."
—Dr. Don Kash
University of Oklahoma
In the face of disagreement among experts in the
field of energy and the environment, how can we
best decide which energy technologies to develop?
What role should the Department of Energy play in
the decisionmaking process? What is the most
productive role for federal, state, and local environ-
mental agencies and advocate groups to play in
relation to the Department of Energy?
The Role of the
Department of Energy
Since its founding, the Department of Energy
has focused on technical research and develop-
ment, and several witnesses stressed the need for
this kind of information. But there was general
agreement at the hearings that more and better
technical information alone cannot tell us all we
need to know to make the right decisions about our
nation's energy future.
For one thing, we will inevitably have to make
choices without all the facts — whether they are
facts on cost, on environmental effects, or on
technical feasibility. In addition — as these
hearings clearly show — many energy and environ-
mental professionals simply do not agree on the
conclusions to be drawn from these facts. This
makes the difficult choices we face even harder to
resolve, since these conflicts leave the public with
no clear basis for choosing among energy
alternatives.
This emphasizes one of the major themes of the
1978 Section 11 Hearings: the need for a way of
making decisions about our energy and environ-
mental future that the majority of people can
understand, trust, and accept. For without public
understanding and support, the most promising
energy technologies could die in the commercial-
ization stage.
25
-------
-------
"Our society has repeatedly opted for technological
fixes, because they offer the opportunity to solve
problems without having to face the difficult social
and political choices implicit in strategies that
require changing human attitudes and behavior.
. there has been far too little emphasis on
producing reliable, credible information about the
environmental-social-economic impact of new
technologies...."
—Dr. Don Kash
University of Oklahoma
"It appears to us that DOE needs a stronger dose of
Madison Avenue in its thinking. When you've got a
new product available, you don't lust put it in the
warehouse; you go out and promote it."
—Mr Cecil Phillips
The Georgia Conservancy
".. .DOE has no effective means for marketing,
technology transfer, or public dissemination of
information or technologies it helps develop. Its
activities seem to be limited to academic confer-
ences and NTIS publications. Commercialization
will require a more active approach."
—Mr. Kevin Markey
Friends of the Earth
".. .there's an institutional selling yob that's got to be
done; there's a public information campaign that's
got to be undertaken in conjunction with the tech-
nology demonstration."
—Dr. Ronald Doctor
California Conservation Development
Commission
To solve this problem, many witnesses recom-
mended that the Department of Energy expand its
traditional role beyond technical research and
development to include badly needed research on
the social, political, and economic effects of energy
technologies In addition, witnesses emphasized
the need for research into the decisionmaking
process itself. We are confronting choices that will
undoubtedly have profound effects on the whole
fabric of American society. Yet we know very little
about how to make the soundest possible decision
in the face of incomplete information — or how to
ensure that our choices — once made — will be
accepted.
Closely related was the emphasis a number of
witnesses placed on the need for taking a much
more active part in overcoming institutional barriers
that stand in the way of new energy technologies
The Department of Energy was asked repeatedly to
step outside its strictly technical role and deal
directly with the habits and attitudes that may
prevent much-needed changes from taking place. It
was argued — and persuasively — that barriers like
mistrust of new technologies or reluctance to
change lifestyle could well cancel out the effects of
years of technical research.
Specific suggestions for overcoming institutional
barriers focused on the need to make information
about new energy technologies available to the
public through an active and widespread program of
education. Many witnesses recommended that the
Department of Energy set up classes and
conferences all over the country to explain energy
technologies — not only to engineers, but also to
legislators, manufacturers, architects, builders, and
the general public. A National Energy Data Center
was suggested to provide access to consistent,
credible technical information for all interested
27
-------
-------
"Consumer attitudes can change only slowly . .
where consumers are not yet convinced that there's
any crisis, that there's any need to change, or that
the new technologies are viable."
—Mr. Jonathan Lash
Natural Resources Defense Council
'The goal of RD&D can no longer be regarded
simply as the production of new technology, but
rather the production of information useful for
energy-related decisionmakmg."
—Dr. Don Kash
University of Oklahoma
". . .providing credible information. . appropriate to
the user of that information, .is by far the highest
priority level activity.
—Dr. Donald Anderson
Mid-American Solar Energy Center
"Our study of the National Energy Plan and the
1979 energy RD&D budget gives us the impression
that a great deal of work is being done in bits
and pieces. . .We do not see a concerted effort to
pull these pieces together into a cogent, strategic
attack on the energy problem itself and on some of
its directly related problems — the economy, the
environment, and national security."
—Mr. Cecil Phillips
The Georgia Conservancy
people. In addition, more than one witness called
for an aggressive public information campaign to
promote new energy technologies through TV
programs, tours, and demonstration facilities all
over the United States.
Although specific recommendations varied, the
general message from many witnesses at the
hearings was clear: it is not enough for the
Department of Energy to limit itself to technical
research and development. The situation has
changed. We can no longer sit back and wait for
attitudes to evolve and new technologies to slowly
replace old ones. The Department of Energy must
make a concerted effort to understand the public's
needs, and to provide people with information on
their energy alternatives.
Although this expanded mission raises funda-
mental questions about the role of government in
our society, the fact that so many witnesses called
for it suggests a widespread feeling that energy
research and development is being carried out in a
vacuum, out of touch with the user community —
the general public. In particular, there emerged the
deep conviction that the Department of Energy — or
somebody — needs to step in and bridge this gap.
Before it becomes unbridgeable.
The Role of
Environmental Regulation
Along with specific suggestions for expanding the
role of the Department of Energy, witnesses also
had a clear and consistent message for the Environ-
mental Protection Agency and other environmental
agencies at the federal, state, and local levels.
The essence of this message was that there is a
critical need for much greater cooperation and
coordination between the Department of Energy
29
-------
-------
"Although energy and environmental goals are
strongly interrelated, the government mechanisms
we have set up to achieve them are not . .We
have environmental specialists pushing for the
environmental goals, energy specialists pushing for
energy goals and no apparent mechanism for
taking the broader view that might productively
resolve these differences."
—Mr. Jackson Browning
Union Carbide Corporation
". .somebody makes a decision to stop and then
they find out that the environmental problems are
such that they could have been go. So then they
go to go and then the environmental constraints
are such that we have to go to stop. . .you get
half-way through and then the rules change It is
difficult, needless to say."
—Mr John Rigg
Consultant, Oil Shale Industry
"The emphasis of EPA's strategies. . should
be on the prevention of adverse effects, not under-
taking an endless series of studies which delay
effective action. ..."
— The Honorable Andrew Maguire
Congressman from New Jersey
". . .environmental issues must be addressed con-
currently with the process development. . . .there
has to be an equal partnership between those
responsible for environmental protection and the
process development within DOE "
—Dr. Chester R Richmond
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
and regulatory authorities at every level. Energy
and the environment are now clearly seen as two
closely interwoven issues. Yet — as the hearings
show — the agencies we have created to deal with
them are perceived to be operating with little or no
knowledge of what the other is doing. Some even
see the agencies as rivals, frequently at odds with
each other. Environmental agencies are seen as
dragging their feet and throwing unproductive
roadblocks in the way of energy development in the
form of erratic and unrealistic regulations. At the
same time, the Department of Energy is seen as
marching ahead with energy development without
any real concern for environmental consequences.
The solution was clear to a number of witnesses:
the Department of Energy, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and other agencies must begin
working together much more closely at every stage
in the development of new energy technologies. In
this way, the environmental impacts of new
technologies can be assessed and pollution controls
designed, built, and tested from the beginning of
development, rather than being added later.
As part of building a more cooperative and
productive relationship with the Department of
Energy, witnesses also recommended that the
Environmental Protection Agency and other
agencies take on a more positive role than they
now play. Stress was placed on the need for
greater consistency in developing and enforcing
pollution control regulations. In addition, witnesses
suggested more realistic standards and lead times
for untried energy technologies, complaining that
stringent regulations can discourage innovation and
slow down development.
All in all, there was a call for environmental
agencies to work as partners with the Department
of Energy in finding ways to produce the energy
31
-------
-------
"A long-range research program of health and
environmental evaluation should be effectively
integrated with the evolving tecnnologies "
—Dr. Eliahu Salmon
Resources tor the Future, Inc.
. . .this situation calls for a close working relation-
ship between DOE and EPA in order that pending
regulations and those which are being contem-
plated. . .can become a part of the thinking within
DOE as it designs new programs to be included in
future budgets . . . The public will become more
disenchanted with federal participation in energy
research programs if it becomes aware of
expensive technologies being abandoned in mid-
stream as new pollution standards require
emissions the technology cannot meet."
—Mr John McCormick
Environmental Policy Center
". .there's an enormous lack of communication
across the country, despite established institutions
that are supposed to communicate results from
state to state or from state to federal government
and back The communication links don't seem to
work effectively."
—Dr. Ronald Doctor
California Conservation Development
Commission
America needs without endangering our environ-
ment. For the proponents of energy development
and environmental protection to be perceived as
adversaries can only delay the process of choosing
clean, safe energy sources for the future. It was
felt that such an image cannot help but confuse
the public and cause suspicion and distrust of any
new energy technology. This reinforced the con-
clusion that a good working relationship between
the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of Energy is essential to the process
of gaining public support for our energy choices.
33
-------
-------
Building a Consensus
"Labor, industry, federal and state agencies, and
environmentalists. . must be brought into the
discussions about actions and measures that have
to be considered for environmental pollution
abatement. . .These groups must understand why,
when, and how necessary adiustment measures will
be implemented. . . .Only with the full participation
of those affected and the support of onlookers can
a political consensus in support of the decisions
be realized."
—Dr. William Jones
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
'The biggest single challenge to science and
technology policymaking in the U.S. is that our
consensus-building machinery has broken down."
—Dr. Chester Richmond
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
".. .greater public participation should be sought in
formulating research policy and goals and in
identifying environmental concerns which should
be evaluated in RD&D programs Data developed^
by federal programs should be publicly available."
—Mr. Kevin Markey
Friends of the Earth
"New technologies seem to be implemented more
easily if they are well developed and understood
prior to commercialization, if user groups are
involved in the development. . . .Public involvement
is lust as important in the RD&D decisionmaking
process as in any other agency activity, but it is
frequently ignored by agencies "
—Dr. Roger Caldwell
University of Arizona
No matter which energy technologies we finally
decide on for the future, our decisions are going to
need widespread public backing. This point was
stressed repeatedly during the hearings by many
different witnesses — whether they favored coal,
solar energy, or conservation as the answer to our
energy future.
There was a general conviction at the hearings
that today, the public is simply not being adequately
informed about or involved in the process of energy
research and development. Energy decisions that
will directly affect all of our lives seem to be made
behind closed doors. Many witnesses expressed
the feeling of being excluded from participating in
the choices that will shape the future more pro-
foundly than any other decisions today's society is
making. What's more, witnesses clearly saw those
widespread feelings of alienation as a real threat
to the success of our nonnuclear energy research
and development program.
The strongest single statement, in fact, to come
out of the hearings was that the Department of
Energy, EPA, and other federal, state, and local
agencies must begin to present the facts about our
energy and environmental alternatives to the public.
These agencies must also do a better job of defining
the uncertainties we face with regard to energy
supplies, environmental effects, and costs to
society. Furthermore, this information must be
presented clearly, in a way the public can under-
stand and use — because even though the issues
involved are technical and complex, public par-
ticipation can only come with understanding and
acceptance of the risks and alternatives. To achieve
this, the public must be viewed as a valuable
source of information — and a necessary
component in the decisionmaking process. Any
decision arrived at without broad public consensus
runs the risk of never being implemented.
35
-------
-------
".. .we're not lust developing a bunch of tech-
nologies We're talking about a fundamental social
change, and as we develop those technologies
we've got to develop the kind of social-political
support for those technologies which make them
operate."
—Dr. Don Kash
University of Oklahoma
The witnesses at the 1978 Section 11 Hearings
recognized that building this public consensus on
energy and the environment will not be easy. It will
require openly debating issues to resolve conflicts.
Making compromises. And, in general, recognizing
that the final decisionmaking responsibility on
issues as central to society as energy and the
environment can only rest with the people.
Building a consensus is bound to be a slow and
difficult process. Yet it is a process that must be
undertaken before we can make a transition from
the petroleum age to an age of new energy
sources.
37
-------
The 1978 Section 11 Hearings
Witnesses
Consulting Firms/
Consultants
Dr. Charles A. Berg
Dr. Meyer Katzper
Systems and Information Analysis
Mr. Richard Merritt
Representing Nebraska Agricultural
Products Industrial Utilization Committee
Mr. John Rigg
Dr. Boyd Riley
Utilities/Industry/
Trade Associations
Mr. George Bolton
Director of Supply Technology
Columbia LNG Corporation
Mr. Jackson Browning
Corporate Director
Health, Safety & Environmental Affairs
Union Carbide Corporation
Mr. Norman M. Clapp
Vice-President
Energy Development & Resources Corp
Mr. Richard H. Demmy
Executive Vice-President
Roy F Weston, Inc
Mr. Tyler Gass
Director of Technical Services
National Water Well Association
Mr. Robert Humphries
Environmental Information Manager
Georgia Power Company
Mr. Richard Jortberg
General Manager
Commonwealth Research Corporation
Dr. William J. Lang
President
Strata Power Company
Dr. Jay Lehr
Executive Director
National Water Well Association
Mr. Earle C. Miller
Vice-President
Charles T Mam, Inc
Mr. William Rogers
Manager, Environmental Affairs
Gulf Mineral Resources Company
Dr Benjamin Schlesinger
Director, Policy & Economic Analysis
American Gas Association
Mr. Ronald Wishart
Director of Energy & Transportation Policy
Energy Supply Service Group
Union Carbide Corporation
38
-------
State and Federal
Government
Dr. Ronald Doctor
Commissioner of Energy Resources
California Conservation Development
Commission
The Honorable Andrew Maguire
Member of Congress from New Jersey
(Statement delivered by Mr Tod Caliguire)
Dr. Chester R. Richmond
Associate Director for Biomedical and
Environmental Sciences
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Dr. David Stricos
Principal Utility Research Analyst
New York State Public Service
Commission
Environmental/
Conservation Organizations
Mr. John Abbotts
Public Interest Research Group
Dr. Donald Anderson
Director
Mid-American Solar Energy Center
Mr. William Chandler
Nature Conservancy
Mr. Gary DeLoss
Washington Representative
Environmental Policy Center
Mr. Sheldon Kinsall
Assistant Conservation Director
National Wildlife Federation
Mr. Jonathan Lash
Natural Resources Defense Council
Mr. Kevin Markey
Colorado Representative
Friends of the Earth
Mr. John McCormick
Environmental Policy Center
Mr. J. David O'Connor
Solar Project Director
Center for Energy Policy
Mr. William Partington
Director
Environmental Information Center
Florida Conservation Foundation
Mr. Cecil Phillips
Executive Director
The Georgia Conservancy
Dr. Vic F. Russo
The Ad Hoc Committee on
Thermionic Energy Conversion
Dr. Eliahu Salmon
Senior Research Associate
Resources for the Future, Inc
Mrs. Ellen Winchester
Chairperson
National Energy Policy Committee
Sierra Club
39
-------
Panel Members
Universities
Dr. Roger Caldwell
Council for Environmental Studies
College of Agriculture
University of Arizona
Dr. William Jones
Energy Laboratory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Don Kash
Science and Public Policy Program
University of Oklahoma
Dr. George Lot
Solar Energy Applications Laboratory
Colorado State University
Dr. Marshal Merriam
Department of Materials Science
University of California
Dr. Otto Raabe
Radio Biology Laboratory
University of California
Dr. Thomas Sladek
Energy Division
Colorado School of Mines
Research Institute
Dr. Theodore Taylor
Consultant and Visiting Lecturer
Princeton University
Dr. Irvin White
Science and Public Policy Program
University of Oklahoma
Wednesday,
29 March 1978
Chairman
Dr. Stephen J. Gage
Assistant Administrator for Research and
Development
Environmental Protection Agency
Dr. Steven Reznek
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Energy, Minerals and Industry
Environmental Protection Agency
Ms. Adlene Harrison
Regional Administrator, Region VI
Environmental Protection Agency
Dr. James MacKenzie
Council on Environmental Quality
Ms. Virginia Van Sickle
Office of State Planning
State of Louisiana
Thursday,
30 March 1978
Chairman
Dr. Steven Reznek
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Energy, Minerals and Industry
Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Roy Gamse
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Planning and Evaluation
Environmental Protection Agency
Region
Mr. Henry Lee
Director
Massachusetts Energy Office
Dr. James MacKenzie
Council on Environmental Quality
Mr. Eric Cutwater
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region
Environmental Protection Agency
Friday,
31 March
1978
Chairman
Dr. Steven Reznek
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Energy, Minerals and Industry
Environmental Protection Agency
Dr. John Davidson
Council on Environmental Quality
Ms. Rebecca Hanmer
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region I
Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Jeff Herholdt
Assistant Director
West Virginia Fuel and Energy Office
Mr. Alan Merson
Regional Administrator, Region VIII
Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Robert Siek
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
State of Colorado
U.S. Envirormental Protection Agencj
Library 15PL-16)
40
230^- dearborn Stfeet, Room 1670
IL 60604
------- |