Mr. McCORMACK. Congressman Brown, I want to thank you for chairing the meeting in my absence.

I want to thank the gentlemen who have testified this afternoon for their presentations. I most sincerely apologize for my absence. I would very much like to have been here when you testified. I enjoy this testimony and enjoy the give and take and exchange of ideas. I regret having missed part of it, but it was unavoidable.

So I do not have any questions at this time. I have been reviewing with Mr. Ratchford here your testimony. He has highlighted your testimony for me, and I have been going over it. I do have a question for Mr. Urquhart, and that would be as to susceptibility to damage of the collectors, the tubular collectors. What about their being broken by stones and baseballs, et cetera ?

Mr. URQUHART. Mr. Chairman, this is a question which is obviously of great importance, and we hope to answer that by engineering the system to withstand the environmental conditions of its installation. There are a number of possible ways of approaching that problem. Do any of my colleagues have additional comments to make in that regard?

Mr. BOSSELER. No, not necessarily, not without going into a lot of detail.

Mr. McCORMACK. If you wish to discuss it at a later time or send us any subsequent material, please do.

Mr. FEHLNER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remark that we have lived with glass windows all of these years, and one of the objectives of our program would be to make the modular unit low cost so that over the lifetime the replacement of some baseball damaged units would not be a major undertaking and would not kill the economics of the system.

RESPONSE BY MR. DONALD A. URQUHART TO QUESTIONS OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

Question 1. Some concern has been voiced that immediate initiation of a solar heating and cooling demonstration program may cause a premature freezing of designs. Do you feel that such a demonstration should be delayed pending further results of present research activity?

Answer 1. We do not share the concern of others that the demonstration will freeze designs prematurely. We feel that the time frame of the proposal is more than adequate for demonstration purposes and that delays should be avoided. Question 2. Radical new housing designs may help optimize solar performance and avoid design monotony; hiding the solar units in conventional housing may help better ensure builder and buyer acceptance. Because of these and other factors, can you advise as to how the design selection process should be administered?

Answer 2. We feel that the design selection process should allow a diversity of approaches to cover both situations stated in the questions.

Question 3. Large numbers of demonstration units on a few sites may lower the per unit cost, while smaller numbers on many sites may provide greater visibility and increased diversity of design and utilize more climatic regions. Which of these approaches would you prefer and why?

Answer 3. Large numbers of demonstration units may lower unit cost but the numbers anticipated are not sufficient to achieve real mass production economies. We favor smaller numbers on many sites to achieve diversity of design. Large scale duplication of one design on a few sites, in our view, would not increase the validity of the demonstration, but only the redundancy of results.

Question 4. Residential units have widespread public visibility, while different types of commercial units are reported to have greater near-term economic potential. How would you allocate the proposed funding between these two parts of the bill and why?

Answer 4. If near term economic potential is valid for commercial, this approach does not need as much push as others with less immediate inherent merit. In other words, free market factors will spur exploitation of the more economic opportunities. Thus, the greater amount of funding should be allocated to the approaches where catalyst action is most needed.

Question 5. Promoting retrofitting will greatly expand the market potential for manufacturers, but will presumably be less aesthetically pleasing; new construction would be more economical and trouble free. Would you recommend pursuing both approaches in this demonstration phase? Why?

Answer 5. We recommend both approaches because they both need to be demonstrated and this is the purpose of the bill.

Question 6. What recommendations can you make to insure that high standards of performance and quality are met by manufacturers of solar heating and cooling units?

Answer 6. The benefit of tax incentive, or whatever incentive may exist, should be contingent upon utilization of approved systems, "approved" being the term applied to systems which meet standards set jointly by industry, government (NBS), etc.

Question 7. How can professional organizations (architects, engineers, etc.) and other groups (lenders, realtors, etc.) provide assistance in meeting the objectives of this legislation?

Answer 7. These organizations can assist by a concerted effort to contribute with minimum red tape, particularly in the area of standards.

Question 8. What specific recommendations can you make regarding patents and protection of proprietary rights to ensure maximum industrial participation in this demonstration project?

Answer 8. Industry should be given wide latitude to retain patents and rights to proprietary protection.

Question 9. Can you suggest any additional incentives or marketing strategies which will ensure widespread and continued acceptance of solar heating and cooling technology by designers, builders, lenders, and buyers?

Answer 9. This is a very detailed and interesting question. We feel we do not have the time (before January 10) to do it justice.

Question 10. The proper conduct of the residential design competitions was a concern of a number of witnesses. Could you provide any specific suggestions to ensure the successful generation of an adequate number of practical designs? Answer 10. In general, I am not in favor of design competitions. I prefer performance competitions. My feeling is that the largest possible number of design concepts should be selected for the purpose of diversity. This approach should stimulate a large entry. The main criteria for a design should be its practicality first, and its relative merit compared to other similar concepts second.

Mr. McCORMACK. Thank you very much.

I will not ask any more questions at this time, but simply wish to express my appreciation to you.

I do want to make the general comment that I believe these 3 days of hearings have been extremely constructive, and I believe your contribution has been truly significant. The record we have built from these 3 days will go a long way toward providing a background for not only amendments to this legislation, but also for moving the legislation forward to the House of Representatives. One of the things we must do is discuss this matter with the Office of Management and Budget and hope to persuade them to support immediate action on it rather than waiting for the legislation to be passed. This is one of the things we will undertake in the very near future. We hope to move with this legislation soon, and we may, indeed, be calling on all or any of you for some additional future assistance, and I am sure you will be prepared to give it to us at that time.

Thank you very much, and the meeting is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m. the meeting of the subcommittee was adjourned.

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A. STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD CONCERNING H.R. 10952

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MEMBERS

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE J. J. (JAKE) PICKLE OF TEXAS-STATEMENT BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, HOUSE SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS COMMITTEE, NOVEMBER 13, 1973

H.R. 10952, AN IMPORTANT MOVE IN SOLAR ENERGY

Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to make my views known on the Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act of 1973.

All over the country we are finding out first-hand that energy allocation does not increase our basic supplies of energy sources. Allocation can help to spread the shortage around and blunt its impact, but it can neither end it nor even alleviate it.

We must find new sources of energy if we are to get out of our energy box. For several months I have argued that more effort must be put into energy research and development of new energy sources. The Energy Subcommittee, under the wise and able leadership of Congressman Mike McCormack, takes an important step in this direction this week.

The fact is the research for use of solar energy has already been done. My own home town of Austin, Texas, in a recent energy study done by the city, found it is now possible to build into a new 2,000 square-foot home for $4,000 a solar system capable of supplying heating, air conditioning and water heating 80% of the time. The study estimates a collector area of 10,000 acres, surprisingly low area requirement, would supply a large share of Austin's growth needs with solar energy.

Moreover, solar energy is an inexhaustible and constant source. No one is going to cut off our sunshine imports or arbitrarily raise its price.

We don't need to worry about its reserves running out.

It will be possible to partially solar heat and cool one out of every ten new homes within the next decade.

But it is very easy to be over-optimistic about solar energy. As things now stand, progress could be very slow in moving to this type of energy source.

There will be architectural constraints on the solar homes; they will be more expensive. The efficiency and economy of these systems need vast improvement. Market analyses must be made and educational campaign undertaken by industry to make people aware of the new technology.

A large-scale demonstration project is needed to get the whole matter off the ground.

That is why H.R. 10952 is so important. This legislation provides for a threeyear demonstration of 2,000 solar heating units and a five-year demonstration of an additional 2,000 solar heating and cooling units in residential dwellings. The dwellings used would include mobile homes, townhouses, and military base units as well as regular individual family homes and would also include commercial and industrial buildings.

The $50 million program covers research, development, demonstration and evaluation. It would be carried out jointly with NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Defense, and the National Bureau of Standards.

Additional legislation may be needed to provide tax and mortgage incentives to encourage homeowners, homebuilders and manufacturers to employ solar energy in new and remodeled homes and buildings. And more work obviously remains to be done in improving solar energy technology for use in central power stations to supply large amounts of our power needs.

The legislation before us takes a first and most crucial step toward putting to practical use the research we already have in the solar field, moving us toward a future when energy will be neither a crisis nor a problem again.

STATEMENT OF U.S. REPRESENTATIVE GOODLOE E. BYRON OF MARYLAND-COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS, HEARINGS ON H.R. 10952-SOLAR HEATING AND COOLING DEMONSTRATION ACT, NOVEMBER 15, 1973

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and your distinguished colleagues for this opportunity to present my views on H.R. 10952, the Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act of 1973 and related bills. As one of the co-sponsors of this bill, I would like to urge favorable consideration of the bill now before the Committee. At this time the House Commerce Committee is working on legislation to authorize actions by the President to respond to the energy problems confronting the nation. The subject of energy in our highly technical society is one with many ramifications for our nation-our standard of living, our economic progress, our national defense posture are all related directly to the question of adequate supplies of energy. Technical progress may eventually lead to efficient coal gasification and other uses of abundant fossil fuels; however, it is obvious that alternatives must be explored to our dependence on fossil fuels.

From ancient times man has realized the power and utility of the sun as a source of heat and energy. We have now reached the stage where extensive research in solar energy is needed. This unlimited and almost unvarying source of power must not be looked on as a panacea for all our energy problems; nevertheless, the sun can provide at least part of the energy to heat homes and factories and reduce our dependence on conventional fuels. Research into the full spectrum of questions surrounding the use of solar power should be undertaken as soon as possible. The continued viability of our way of life depends on swift Congressional action in this area.

I thank you for the opportunity of expressing my thoughts on solar energy, and I would once more urge the distinguished Members of this panel to approve H.R. 10952 for action by the full Committee and the House. I thank you.

OTHER VIEWS

WILLIAM J. BAILEY, PRESIDENT, CARRIER CORPORATION

In view of present technology and costs, we believe it is premature to consider a mass commercial demonstration project of the kind proposed. Dr. James C. Fletcher, Administrator of NASA, in hearings held recently on H.R. 10952, stated that commercially available solar collectors now cost from $5 to $20 per square foot and are only 20% to 30% efficient. He estimated that to be practical, costs must decrease to $1 to $2 per square foot and efficiencies must increase to perhaps twice their present value.

Dr. H. Guyford Stever, Director of National Science Foundation, believes NSF's role should be to initiate and support basic and applied research in solar energy, but he questioned immediate plans for widespread commercial demonstration of solar systems for residential dwellings.

The Federal Council for Science and Technology in 1972 established the Solar Energy Panel to assess solar energy as a potential energy source, and to recommend research and development programs. The panel has reported that there are no technical barriers to wide application of solar energy, and if development is successful, building heating could reach public use within five years and building cooling within six to ten years.