Conservation’s Promise Fades as Fuel Prices Drop, Policies Alter

Surely you remember the energy crisis of the late 1970s, when President Jimmy Carter went on television wearing a sweater.

We were going to shave with cool water and turn out the lights and turn down the thermostat.

We were going to diminish America’s reliance on imported oil, which became scarce and climbed in price, thanks to an embargo by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and long lines formed at gasoline stations.

Once a Rallying Cry

Energy conservation was the rallying cry.

The idea of conservation is still alive today, but it’s fading.

Without conservation of energy over the last 13 years, by some estimates, consumption would be 39% higher than it is today.

Americans are still saving energy, the Energy Department said. Last fall, the department estimated that the energy needed to produce a dollar’s worth of economic activity would fall 2% in 1986 even as that activity would grow 2.7%. (Later figures show that economic growth was somewhat less, 2.5%, but energy use figures have not been updated yet.)

Many utilities, faced with long construction times, uncertain environmental regulation and flinty-eyed state utility commissions, are pursuing conservation. Persuading their customers to save has become their cheapest source of more available kilowatts.

Efficiency Curve May Flatten

But the Energy Department predicts a slowdown in gains in energy efficiency to 0.2% in 1987.

One reason is that gasoline prices, after adjusting for inflation, are lower than they have been since 1948. Unleaded gasoline at 80 cents a gallon is a third below the 1985 price and is equal to 30 cents a gallon in 1972 dollars, 6 cents below the actual price in that year.

The Reagan Administration is proposing the end of mandatory mileage standards for new cars. Even as it does, Secretary of the Interior Donald P. Hodel and Secretary of Energy John S. Herrington disagree over whether Americans will once again have to wait in lines at gasoline pumps. Hodel predicts that the lines will form within two to five years. Herrington says it won’t happen.

Last year, without dissent, Congress passed a bill setting energy standards for household appliances. President Reagan surprised everyone by killing it through a pocket veto. The President said the bill was an infringement on state’s rights and would raise the price of appliances by $1.4 billion a year.

Sets Minimum Standards

The appliance bill would set minimum standards of energy efficiency for home stoves, refrigerators, freezers, washers, dryers and room air conditioners. It would gain little energy right away, but could be important in the 1990s.

Supporters say families would save an average of $250 a year.

As one of its first acts this year, Congress passed the bill a second time overwhelmingly and Reagan says he won’t veto it this time around.

Manufacturers claim that appliance efficiency has improved 39% since 1972 and will gain another 15% by 1990, with or without the bill. But in an about-face from previous opposition, the manufacturers joined conservationists in supporting the bill. They are trying to head off further state standards. Half a dozen states have established standards already.

Despite measures like this, energy conservation has lost support in Washington.

‘What’s in--What’s out’

Some energy interests welcome its demise. The first 1987 issue of the Washington newsletter of the American Nuclear Society, playing the “what’s in--what’s out” game, said:

“Solar power is ‘out.’ . . . Pity those poor people with solar panels who now have no maintenance, no spare parts, no warranty service and leaky roofs. Conservation as a government enterprise is ‘out.’ ”

Proof abounds that in Washington, at least, that interest in energy conservation has waned.

In the federal government last year:

- The White House dismantled a solar collector President Carter installed on the roof for heating hot water.

- The Transportation Department rolled back new-car mileage standards to 26 miles per gallon for 1987 and 1988 models from 27.5 m.p.g. General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. sought the reversal because more customers are buying big cars. GM says its fleetwide average will slip from 26.4 m.p.g. last year to 26.1 m.p.g. this year.

- The General Services Administration announced plans to ease government thermostat settings from 68 degrees to 70 in the winter and from 80 degrees to 78 in the summer. The agency said cheating on the current rules is common.

- Congress, in revamping the tax system, let die most tax incentives to develop alternative energy sources. The House Energy and Commerce Committee merged its energy conservation and power subcommittee into its fossil fuels subcommittee.

The Reagan Administration’s 1985 National Energy Policy Plan said that conservation depends on “tens of millions of individuals and organizations” and that compulsory efficiency standards “can impose substantial unnecessary costs on the economy.”

And this year the Administration came in with another budget proposal for the Energy Department that critics say will barely keep conservation programs alive.

Not Happy With Cuts

“I’m appalled,” said Tina Hobson, head of Energy Department outreach programs in the Carter Administration and now executive director of the Fund for Renewable Energy and the Environment.

Her organization is itself a sign of the times. It is the result of a 1986 merger of the Solar Lobby and the Center for Renewable Resources, who found it difficult to survive alone.

According to the House energy conservation and power subcommittee, the Administration is seeking $94 million for development of renewable energy sources--solar panels, windmills, hydroelectric dams and other non-fuel sources--and $86 million for conservation programs and grants to the states.

Congress last year provided $146 million for renewables and $375 million for conservation, including grants to the states. The Administration now proposes to cancel $112 million in grants on the grounds that about $3 billion in oil company overcharge refunds will go to the states, and they don’t need federal funds.

Documents Big Reductions

The subcommittee’s analysis notes that in 1981, conservation got $802 million and renewables $777 million.

Nuclear fission research would get $593 million, down from $613 million, and fossil fuel research would get $369 million, compared to $450 million.

The Energy Department is often criticized for overemphasizing military activities--building nuclear bombs and warship reactors.

The subcommittee’s analysis says weapons spending will be 65% of the department’s total under the President’s request, up from 61% this year and 38% in President Carter’s last budget.

Department officials argue that weapons dollars do not compete for other dollars in the department. However, some nuclear research outside the weapons programs is aimed at military goals--reactor power sources that could be used in the “Star Wars” defense program, for example.

Questions Government’s Role

Donna Fitzpatrick, assistant secretary of energy for conservation and renewable resources, questions whether it is the proper role of government to support large projects that are “close to commercialization.” However, she says, the Administration will support high-risk research that offers long-term payoff and that, for one reason or another, industry has trouble taking on.

Is conservation a question of ethics?

Fitzpatrick replies: “You shouldn’t waste, but what constitutes waste is another question.”

She clearly thinks that Congress is wasting money in some of the projects it requires the government to support. An example is the 3.2-megawatt wind turbine being developed by the Boeing Co. with $10.2 million a year in government funds. Fitzpatrick says the wind generator industry prefers smaller turbines for ease of maintenance.