The problem we see immediately is that we are still in the developmental stage. The solar energy that Mr. Stever referred to at MIT in 1941 is not what we would be putting into buildings today. So we have a period of development to get that technology to the point where it is reasonably economic.

Mr. CRONIN. If I could interrupt for just a moment.

That type of thought process bothers me when it pertains to new sources of energy. The furnace that you put in your home, the standard furnace that you put in your home in 1941, is not the one that you would put in your home in 1973 either.

Mr. MICHEL. That is true.

Mr. CRONIN. But yet we seem to have some sort of block that despite the tremendous use of solar energy for centuries-not just decades that unless we have the ultimate and perfect system we cannot talk about widespread use.

Mr. MICHEL. That is not exactly what I was referring to.

The final packaging of the solar appliance, whatever it might be— and I think with technology we are very close to it but taking it from the scientific acceptability and adaptability to a specific design will take several years.

Mr. CRONIN. Why?

We have had testimony from numerous people before this committee and before other committees that I serve on that we have the technology available today. We are not talking about a technological breakthrough. What we are talking about is a systems approach to unifying the technology that we already have into a marketable item that people can buy in a competitive manner the same as they buy heating and air-conditioning systems.

I gave the example yesterday of a house that I am remodeling on the Hill. I looked into this from a personal point of view to see what would be involved. And from a competitive standpoint, I can go out and buy a packaged furnace that they can send in one unit. A man puts two wires together and it works.

The same with air-conditioning, and yet if I want to utilize solar energy, I have to go to no less than 20 different suppliers, have somebody design a system for me, and piece it all together, and then beg a contractor to think about putting together something new.

Now, it seems to me that this is the essence of the problem, and it is a much bigger and more important problem than technology. All we are talking about is technology. That is not solving the problem of making it usable to people.

Mr. MICHEL. I agree completely. The term "technology" may have been inappropriate. I think the knowledge of how to do it may exist, but the packaging is the limitation, and I would like to ask Mr. Siegel to my right to give you an idea of what we did in the modular integrated utility system, which is standard technology, things on the shelf now, and the difficulties we have had in packaging and the time it has taken. That has been the greatest constraint on the whole

program.

I think you will find the same problem with solar energy, even with existing knowledge and hardware; putting together into a final package for a house will take time.

Mr. SIEGEL. First of all, back in February 1970 was when we began our interest in other ways of providing conservation of energy and perhaps economical and lower cost operation of housing, and we decided to do the total energy experiment in the Jersey City site of Operation Breakthrough. That was the forerunner of our modular integrated system where we were combining all utility services into an on-site package.

The comment that you made of 20 different suppliers in order to get your solar energy system is the same kind of concern we went into in our total energy plan. We had to go to a number of different suppliers to get the various pieces and then hire a consulting engineer to design the integration of the system for that unit only.

We did not have something that was replicable. Then we had to hire a mechanical engineering contractor from the building industry to be the person to pull all of those pieces together and install them in that building and get them operating. That is analogous to the problem you are encountering in trying to get your solar energy system.

Mr. CRONIN. What were the difficulties you had in putting it together and solving it?

Mr. SIEGEL. The difficulty is that once the technology exists one then has to do all the design and preparation simply for the construction on a one-time-only basis, not as a marketable item for mass production. Mr. CRONIN. That is self-evident.

Mr. SIEGEL. The concept we have been following is to encourage the development of total energy systems, or an integrated utility system, which we think has even more potential as a marketable item by the private sector.

Mr. CRONIN. What incentives are you creating, or what imaginative ideas are you utilizing to give industry the incentive to do this? Mr. SIEGEL. We are trying, first of all, to work with the analyses to show that there is a market there, by doing an analysis of the basic technical work and the economics.

Second, to identify what the institutional barriers are in codes and health regulations and so on, we want to know what they may be which would be barriers to further replication on a commercial basis.

We have retained the National Academy of Engineering, and we have asked them to form an independent committee to examine all of these issues, bringing into that group the people who are today involved in the supply of utilities and in utilities' regulation and in health codes, as a means for being able to develop a mechanism of report and analysis saying with their imprimatur, that this makes

sense.

We are then going toward demonstrations, with the intent being to provide something that people can look at and say that this is acceptable for my community.

Mr. CRONIN. That is where I disagree with the concept because what you are saying is you are putting together a demonstration house, for example, to show that it is not something from outer space. You are putting together a series of units so people can see that it works. I think we would be much better off if we had a demonstration project to produce a furnace of a number of Btu's in a package which could literally be put together with a few connections and be functional in a wide variety of existing homes or new homes.

I do not know about every section of the country, but in my area, the Northeast, where we use 58 percent of the No. 2 heating fuel in the United States of America, if somebody had a proposal for an addition that could be added to the home today that would provide some savings on oil and could be sold for somewhere around $500, there would not be any need for market analysis. They would sell hotter than anything has ever sold to the American consumer.

It seems to me we should be aiming in this direction. The DOT comes up with demonstration projects on what we can do to improve air safety and automobile safety. It seems to me HUD should be coming up with some sort of a demonstration unit that could be quickly put into a home.

Mr. SIEGEL. May I respond?

In clarification, I did not intend that demonstration as being the last piece of the action. Part of the process that we hope would be included in the demonstration is that those providing the demonstration services would go on to marketing these services and products commercially. We are looking to substantial involvement of the private sector. Those groups and organizations would be involved in further sales and further market. We would have their participation and followthrough.

It is not the idea that this is the last piece.

Mr. CRONIN. The chairman has been very liberal with my use of time, but I would like to ask just one last question.

When we talked about providing incentives, I can appreciate the gentleman's point of view that a home is generally the largest investment an individual makes. That has been almost a cliché for some time, but I think home mortgages are getting to be like automobile pay ments. They never seem to be completely paid off. Nobody pays off their mortgage any more. They seem to move on and get a bigger mortgage and a different home.

So I think our concept of payments should begin to change, and I am wondering what incentives you feel you could give. You mentioned briefly "self-insurance." You have had your ups and downs with FHA. Is there something we could do to guarantee the resale value of a home in some of these demonstration projects-some sort of an imaginative reinsurance situation that you feel might get us off the dime in the next year or two, as opposed to the next 10 years?

What I am looking for is a big incentive to get things moving quickly because our energy crunch is a short run crunch if we can bring a lot of these things on line.

Mr. SHERMAN. We have that one incentive, which is not too dissimilar to that. It is a Federal guarantee that if anything at any time during the life of the mortgage went wrong due to the experimental nature of some of the things used in the home, we, as the Federal Government, would come into that house and replace everything with standard, conventional construction. That does exist as section 233 of the National Housing Act. But remember this type of guarantee is available on a very limited number of housing units because of the potential exposure to very high risk.

Mr. CRONIN. On a reinsurance basis, do you think that, say, the liability would be reasonable enough so that we could come up with a guarantee for resale value?

Mr. SHERMAN. Perhaps so. I am brainstorming off the top of my

head, but perhaps even something about tax relief on the part of the owner because he is using less municipal services.

Mr. McCORMACK. I am afraid we will have to cut your conversation off and hold hearings on that bill at a later time. We have unfortunately taken quite a bit of Dr. Peter Glaser's time this morning. Did you have a comment?

Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of conserving time, I will not ask questions. I want to thank Mr. Michel for his testimony and offer the observation that as a result of the questions which have been asked, perhaps some of the original statement, indicating that this bill which we are considering is inconsistent with the larger hope of directing a unified program toward our energy problem, may have been dispelled.

It seems to me that we cannot only, in a quick parallel, get a better quarterback or a better game plan with which to centralize our approach to this problem, but that this body, the Congress, also has the power to change the rules and to allow us to put a few extra men on our side of the field.

It strikes me that this may be what we are trying to do with this and other measures that can supplement the overall problem, supplement a solution, and help us find a solution to the overall problem. Mr. McCORMACK. Thank you.

Certainly I think it is important to recognize that this is a demonstration program. I want to retract any statement that I made about OMB opposition and perhaps change it to lack of support. Perhaps we can persuade them to change their perspective.

Mr. Michel, Mr. Siegel, Mr. Sherman, and Mr. Leighton, we certainly appreciate your participation and assistance. We look forward to working with you in the future. We congratulate you on the work you are doing, and thank you for coming today.

We have one additional witness today, Dr. Peter Glaser for the Arthur D. Little, Inc. Dr. Glaser's title is vice president of engineering and sciences of Arthur D. Little, Inc.

Peter has been with us for many years in research, in solar energy, in the solar energy society, and he is currently serving as editor-inchief of the society's journal. He has worked in satellite space technology and solar farm technology and the whole spectrum. We appreciate having you here today, Peter. And I deeply regret that the clock is running out on us.

Could you put your statement in the record and make an oral statement for us so that we can talk with you a bit.

[A biographical sketch of Dr. Peter E. Glaser follows:]

PETER E. GLASER

Dr. Glaser, Vice President and Head of Engineering Sciences at Arthur D. Little, Inc., has directed a number of advanced engineering development projects in thermodynamics, space and lunar science instrumentation, technology transfer and the utilization of solar energy. He has published and spoken widely on the potential of solar energy to meet future energy demands.

Dr. Glaser received his undergraduate training in mechanical engineering at Leeds College of Technology, and Charles University, Prague. He obtained his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in mechanical engineering from Columbia University in 1955.

Since joining the staff in 1955, he has directed research on: methods of generating high temperatures including the construction of solar and arc imaging furnaces, thermal insulation systems, properties of postulated lunar surface materials. He was responsible for the development of scientific experiments for all

Apollo lunar landing missions, including measurements of the heat flow from the lunar surface, lunar gravity and the earth-moon distance. He is directing projects on the feasibility of the concept of a satellite solar power station, and the potential of solar climate control systems for buildings as a new industry.

Dr. Glaser is a past President of the Solar Energy Society and is currently serving as Editor in Chief of the Society's Journal. He serves on the NASA Task Force for Terrestrial Applications of Solar Energy. He is a member of Committees of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the New York Academy of Sciences, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers, the Society of Automotive Engineers, American Ordnance Association and Sigma Xi. He has over sixty publications, books and patents in the fields of solar energy applications, thermal insulation, thermal properties measurements, thermal imaging techniques, lunar surface characteristics, extraterrestrial resource utilization, and technology transfer.

STATEMENT OF DR. PETER E. GLASER, VICE PRESIDENT-ENGINEERING SCIENCES, ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC.

Dr. GLASER. I am greatly honored to be here, Mr. Chairman, and to have the opportunity to offer an industry view, which from what we have heard in the previous testimony this morning may be somewhat different than these views expressed.

My views have been formed as a result of very close contact with a group of major industrial organizations who are working with us on a solar climate control project with the primary purpose to develop a new industry for solar heating and cooling of buildings and, if feasible, to bring that industry into being in the shortest possible time. Basically the way I see it, the question is not "if solar energy for heating and cooling," but "when?"

I support the objectives of your bill H.R. . . . I believe that the Government's objectives should be to provide energy conserving solar systems to the marketplace as soon as possible. Where I perhaps differ is in that success must be measured in Btu's saved and not by the number of monitored laboratory experimental buildings.

From an industrial point of view, 1,000 to 2,000 units represent too few to test the economy of scale obtainable in mass production. Today there are several demonstration projects in various stages of completion. The premise that the technology is at hand and that customproduced equipment is available now will be demonstrated by projects such as the GSA buildings in Saginaw, Mich., and Manchester, N.H., the Virginia Museum of Science, the office building of the Massachusetts Audubon Society, the laboratory of the Desert Research Institute, the DOD installation at Fort Meade, the building of the Copper Development Association, a multifamily condominium in Vermont, a building at the Colorado State University and the three National Science Foundation proof of concept experiments, as well as a large number of industrial installations and the efforts of individuals to apply solar energy in their homes.

I believe that within a year we will see several of these projects demonstrating to the public that this technology is at hand. What we, as industry, would like to suggest is that your bill consider a shorter time span for implementation, in view of the urgency of the energy situation. I just heard the words which the President used in terms of "unleashing." We want to be "unleashed." We are ready to come back in 3 to 5 years, not to talk about demonstration plants but to produce equipment which the public can buy.