AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. McCORMACK. The meeting will come to order, please. This is a continuation of the Subcommittee on Energy hearings on H.R. 10952, the Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act of 1973. This afternoon we have seven different witnesses to testify before us, and we are under very great pressure in the Congress. We're going to share the job of chairing this committee meeting. I would also like to point out that it's going to be necessary for the witnesses to be very circumspect about the time allotted to them because we are going to have a difficult time getting through. We have requested four of the witnesses to come before us now, but rather than introducing them myself I think I am going to ask the chairman for this afternoon to take over and do the introductions. Today I have asked Congressman Don Fuqua, of Florida, to chair this session of the meeting, and so Congressman, if you'll take over, you can do the introductions. Mr. FUQUA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are happy to have this afternoon to present their statements, and then after they are completed we'll have questions from the Members who are here: Mr. Richard Rittelmann of Burt, Hill & Associates; Dr. Erich Farber of the Solar Energy Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, the University of Florida; Prof. Raymond D. Reed, dean of the College of Architecture and Environmental Design, Texas A. & M. University; William F. Rush, manager of systems application research, Institute of Gas Technology. We'll begin with Mr. Rittelmann. If you will proceed? [A biographical sketch of Mr. Rittelmann follows:] Engineering liaison officer, Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard 1962-63 Chief engineer-U.S. Destroyer 1963-64 1964-67: Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Consulting Engineers, Joseph F. Bontempo, Associates-Architects: Project Architect for the following projects: Eastern Area Special School, Pittsburgh, Pa. Quigley High School, Baden, Pa. Penn State University, Beaver County, Pa. Westinghouse Short Circuit Test Facility, Beaver, Pa. Beaver County Mental Health Center, Rochester, Pa. Allegheny Mountain Tunnel, Pennsylvania Turnpike. 1967-Present: Burt, Hill & Associates, Architects: Butler County Mental Health Center, Butler, Pa. Butler Areas Intermediate High School, Butler, Pa. Shell Point Village Auditorium, Fort Myers, Fla. Riverview High School, Oakmont, Pa. Westinghouse Research Corporation-Carnegie-Mellon University Miscellaneous: U.S. Navy Holloway Scholarship. Sarah Z. Kahn Memorial Scholarship. Tau Beta Pi Engineering Honorary. Registered Architect-Pa. EX 5604. Member, American Institute of Architects. Member, ASHRAE. Contributing Author-Energy Conservation Techniques in Building Construction, American School Board Journal; Educational Facilities Laboratories; American School University. STATEMENT OF P. RICHARD RITTELMANN, BURT, HILL & ASSOCIATES Mr. RITTELMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to introduce the gentleman on my left, a partner of our firm, Mr. Ralph Burt. Mr. FUQUA. We're happy to have you here with us. Mr. RITTELMANN. I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony before this committee for what we consider the first significant effort to stimulate solar energy technology as a viable energy alternative. I might add that because of the length of the testimony I don't intend to read all of it, only excerpts, and leave the details for further study. Our firm has long been involved in the development of energy conservation techniques and their relationship to architectural design. Through our interest and efforts in energy conservation, our attention to the possibilities of utilizing solar energy evolved in a rather natural manner as its potentials became increasingly obvious. We have served as architectural consultants for solar energy applications to the University of Delaware, and are currently participating with the Westinghouse Research Corp. and Carnegie-Mellon University in a multiphase solar heating and cooling program, sponsored by the National Science Foundation. We have designed and constructed a solar test facility in use at our offices to evaluate the material characteristics, assembly, and installation problems associated with various solar collector designs which we have developed. We have designed and developed the Wilson solar demonstration project, which is included as appendix A to this testimony, because it is very similar to the effort which H.R. 10952 is intended to stimulate. We felt that its inclusion would give the committee members a graphic representation of the basic essentials of a residential solar heating and cooling system. Again, I might add, it is in no way intended to be construed as an answer, only a graphic representation. Our experience with this project and other efforts have given us some insight into processes involved in new technology implementation within the building industry. Considerable time and effort has been expended thus far in collaboration with various industries that likely would have capabilities in this effort, and it is encouraging to submit that we have had enthusiastic cooperation from Alcoa, PPG Industries, Air Enterprises, Honeywell, The Maloney Corp., Brace Institute which is part of McGill University, Solarex Corp., and many others too numerous to mention. The level of interest within the industries that we have collaborated with has been great, but the level of commitment for the most part has not been substantial. H.R. 10952 has great potential to substantially raise the level of commitment in industry by underwriting some of the inherent risks involved in new product development. One of the most significant problems thus far, which we have confronted in the development of this project, has been lack of hardware available for solar systems. With the aid of this bill, that particular problem could be overcome in a very short period of time. As an indication of the level of public interest, we have had over 50 inquiries within the past 3 months from persons or potential clients who would like to incorporate the use of solar energy in their building projects. We have had numerous requests to speak on the subject, and from our point of view, there is a rapidly increasing awareness and interest on the part of the public in solar energy. It is encouraging to see that the funding rate proposed by H.R. 10952 is the same as that suggested by the NASA/NSF Solar Energy Panel in its report "Solar Energy as a National Energy Resource." As a member of that panel, we endorse the recommendations made in the report, but would like to add that the recommended funding levels are those necessary to reach various technological milestones, and it should not necessarily be concluded that implementation within the building industry will necessarily follow. The last paragraph of our subpanel report, on page 21, states: The funding level estimated for the entire 10 year program is $100 million. If the total program is carried through approximately as outlined, it is fully expected that at its conclusion, residential heating and cooling with solar energy will be in general public use. As the remainder of our testimony will imply, we feel that the last phase should be modified to read: "residential heating and cooling with solar energy can be in general public use." The difference between will and can is likely to be the difference between technological development and technological implementation. The achievement of the ultimate goals of this bill will be more dependent on implementation procedures than purely technological development. I would like to skip some of the previous recommendations, which you've already had. Mr. FUQUA. Yes. We will make your entire statement a part of the record. Mr. RITTELMANN. Yes, sir. Architectural design diffusion, which seems to be the area that we are questioned quite often about and, in particular, a question which has been asked of us frequently by various people involved in solar research has been, "What do you think will be the 'esthetic acceptability' of residences with solar heating systems?" The frequency of this question has indicated to us that it is of concern to many people involved in solar energy development, but unfortunately it is a very difficult question to answer. It is difficult primarily because there are so many variables to be considered which affect many different participants in the building process; all of them have different motives and viewpoints. It is perhaps more valuable to explain the process of design diffusion throughout the building industry and how it may impact consumer decisions. To the vast majority of consumers or end-users in the building industry market, "esthetic acceptability" tends to be a conditioned response rather than a design value judgment. Consequently, "esthetics" which implies design quality, has been perceived by others to be acceptable, and the success or failure of the conditioning process will ultimately have considerable impact on consumer decisions. The conditioning process is not a conscience effort, but rather a traditional occurrence, at least down to the real estate salesman when the conditioning response becomes quite conscious. An unfortunate characteristic of the traditional occurrence of the design diffusion appears to be the lessening of the design quality as the extent of diffusion increases within the building industry. The mass housing market is the recipient of the diffusion process and rarely the originator. Going on, as examples of this diffusion process: The much accepted "ranch-style" house available in the housing market did not develop from western ranches, but rather from the "prairie house" designs of Frank Lloyd Wright in the 1930's. The much used and abused "split-level entry" in today's housing market had its beginning as an innovative architectural solution to accommodate the hilly sites around Los Angeles, to take advantage of land that would have otherwise been unsuitable for building. The so-called "split-level entry" has had such diffusion throughout the housing industry that it is quite often seen in homes on perfectly flat lots, where its use has no logic other than to satisfy aspiration. The "cathedral" ceiling, often a major selling point in development homes, had its beginning in individually designed luxury residences in California and the Pacific Northwest. In fact, the constructivist wood idiom, which for quite some time was considered the Pacific Northwest vernacular, is currently undergoing great diffusion and proliferation in the development housing market. The large glass walls, which were a characteristic of individually designed luxury residences in rather secluded areas, has diffused its way through the housing market to the point where in the 1950's and early 1960's, virtually every builder house had a "picture" window. As this diffusion increased, the original design intent was completely forgotten; and what was once intended to be an extension of the house into a secluded site, has now become little more than an imposition to privacy, partially compensated by obscuring the hole with a grotesque table lamp. The following examples regarding build-ins, I won't go through, or other design features. But we do want to lead into the application of the same theory to technology implementation and diffusion. The air-conditioning industry had its beginning with individually designed, rather expensive, rather cumbersome built-up systems, which have had extensive progression through the building industry to the point where it is possible today to purchase a completely packaged air-conditioning unit that can be installed without the services of an architect or engineer and in some cases by the buyer himself. The recently commercialized trash compactor had its beginning in the larger individually designed and constructed commercial units. We must admit to ignorance, however, regarding the market force which motivates a consumer to spend $200 for an appliance that makes 40 pounds of trash out of 40 pounds of trash. We suspect, however, that aspiration is a stronger motivating force, in this case, than need. The residential dishwasher and garbage disposal unit have both "trickled down" from larger units in commercial installations. The purpose of the above illustrations is to indicate the path of diffusion throughout the building industry for various design and technological developments. In virtually all cases, the diffusion has been downward through the building industry, both from the institutional-industrial-commercial building sector down into the housing industry, and within the housing industry, from luxury residences to low-cost housing. The diffusion appears to be motivated by market conditioning from above and by aspiration from below. We are not aware of any examples of diffusion upward from low-cost housing commercial-institutional building sector. This is not to say that it is impossible to achieve upward diffusion of a technological innovation, but we are suggesting that this technique would be running counter to the historical diffusion process. Mr. William Ewald of the Midwest Research Institute estimated that: On the average, technological change (in construction) requires seventeen years from first commercial use to general acceptance as standard, state-of-theart option or practice. We believe that one of the reasons for the length of time required for diffusion throughout the building industry of a technological or design innovation is that the needs and aspirations of the consumer in the building industry do not change rapidly or radically. This appears to be even more true of the housing industry than the rest of the building industry in general. It also appears that the more extreme the innovation or the greater the departure from existing lifestyles the greater will be the resistance to implementation and diffusion. This characteristic is not nearly so obvious in the general construction industry as it is in the housing industry. We will go on through some of the detail regarding what we consider to be technological constraints, both to the emergence of technology and the commercialization of that technology, which, as indicated in the testimony, we feel is a sharp distinction that should be made. I'm going to page 20, where we have summarized the written testimony with recommendations. The recommendations, which we have listed below, are intended |