CONTENTS Page Bumpers, Hon. Dale, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas__ 1 69, 73 Millhone, John, National Governor's Association Director, Minnesota En- 44, 50 Royer, Hon. Charles, mayor of Seattle, and Councilman Randy Revelle, chairman, Seattle City Council Energy Committee, as presented by Sam R. Sperry, director, Seattle Energy Office, and vice chairman, National League of Cities Conference of Local Energy Officials___. Ruvin, Harvey, commissioner, Dade County, Fla., on behalf of the Na- Walden, Omi, Assistant Secretary, Conservation and Solar Applications, 53, 57 36 STATE ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING ACT THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1978 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 3110, Dirksen Office Building, Hon. Dale Bumpers presiding. Present: Senator Bumpers. Also present: Deborah Merrick, counsel. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DALE BUMPERS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS Senator BUMPERS. Good morning. The purpose of this morning's hearing is to receive testimony on S. 3283, a bill proposed by the administration to help the States develop and strengthen their energy planning and management capabilities, and to consolidate and simplify Federal grant programs. The SEMP bill is based on concepts which are laudable. The legislation recognizes that the active participation of State and local governments is essential if we are to find solutions to our national energy problems. It further recognizes that Federal financial assistance is necessary in order to stimulate that participation. The legislation tries to answer the oft-heard complaint that Federal grant programs are confusing, duplicative, conflicting, and impossible to administer. While I believe that it is desirable to build State capacity to manage energy programs, provide States with the flexibility to address localized energy needs, and consolidate and coordinate Federal requirements, I am not in full agreement with the approach taken by this bill. The bill would terminate the State energy conservation program authorized by EPCA, the supplemental energy conservation plans authorized by ECPA, and the Energy Extension Service and replace all three with a single core grant program. However, in my judgment the programs which would be terminated have not yet been fully implemented or tested. I feel sure the committee will want the opportunity to evaluate the EPCA and ECPA programs and to monitor the performance of the Energy Extension Service before it makes a final decision to significantly alter these federally funded State energy programs. The Energy Extension Service, for example, was written into law only 1 year ago and is still in the pilot program stage. I am personally very concerned about exactly what would happen to the Energy Extension Service under this legislation. The bill also abandons the Energy Policy and Conservation Act concept that the States should meet specific goals for reducing energy consumption and implement specific energy conservation measures in order to qualify for Federal funds. Some of these measures, like the right-turn-on-red requirement, have been implemented by a majority of the States, but others await full implementation. I see no reason why we must leave one job unfinished and hasten on to new programs without more data from the Department of Energy or the States which supports such a change. And, I am concerned about the shift of emphasis in this bill away from conservation programs in general. Conservation efforts have been identified by many as being particularly suited to implementation at a State and local level. Yet, since only 50 percent of the funds authorized in this bill are required to be spent for conservation, these programs would receive less emphasis than they do under existing law. Finally, S. 3283 mandates a comprehensive planning effort by the States and speaks only in the most general terms about managing and implementing any programs which the State may include in its energy plan. The degree of Federal oversight appears to be minimal. It is true that energy problems vary from State to State and solutions to these problems may be diverse and have only localized application; because of this, I am sure that many States will welcome this flexibility and use it to the advantage of the Nation as a whole. However, energy policy is of national importance and I am concerned that in an effort to provide the States with needed flexibility, this legislation does not provide them with enough guidance to insure that both national and State energy needs will be served. I will insert the bill in the record at this point. [The bill follows:] 95TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION S. 3283 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES JULY 12 (legislative day, MAY 17), 1978 Mr. JACKSON (by request) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources A BILL To amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, to improve the States' capacity for energy planning and management, to provide a consolidated program of Federal financial assistance to the States to meet their respective goals for energy conservation, production, and distribution and for energy conservation, production, and distribution, and for other purposes. 1 Be it 'enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That this Act may be cited as the "State Energy Manage 4 ment and Planning Act of 1978". |