 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
By GARY ADKINS
While super energy conglomerates are exploring for new energy deposits and ways of milking the last drop out of old ones, state and local government in Illinois are taking steps to buy wisely and to save energy. There are conflicts over utility policies, and the key agencies to watch are the Illinois Commerce Commission and the Illinois Institute of Natural Resources CONSERVATION of energy may be the single best hope the U.S. has for breaking free from its dependence upon OPEC. Petroleum supply is critical to American economic stability and world political stability. But the U.S. imports nearly half of its petroleum at a yearly cost of over $50 billion. The resultant trade deficit has fed both recession and inflation, and has shackled American foreign policy. The ever present danger of another OPEC oil embargo — like that of 1973 which sent the U.S. into a recession when crude oil prices jumped from $4 to $11 per barrel in just four months — makes energy conservation appear all the more crucial. Several recent and reliable energy studies found that conservation will probably be less costly than finding more supplies of conventional fuels. The most spectacular of these studies is the Harvard Business School's Energy Future (edited by Robert Stobaugh and Daniel Yergin). It estimates that the U.S. could reduce from 30 to 40 percent of its energy consumption by conservation, and that conventional fuels — domestic gas and oil, coal and nuclear power — "can increase their contribution to cover, at most, one-third to one-half of the nation's additional energy needs over the next decade." Meanwhile there may develop a chasm between energy demand and supply. Coal, for example, now provides only about 20 percent of U.S. energy needs. It is the third most significant fuel, both for Illinois and for the nation, and while production is expected to increase in the next decade, its use may be delayed by problems of air pollution, transportation and worker health and safety. Domestic oil and natural gas production is not expected to increase very dramatically despite recent government deregulation. "By the mid-1980's an additional 1 to 2 million barrels per day are anticipated through decontrol," according to E.K. Grigsby, a regulations expert with Phillips Petroleum Company. (The U.S. now imports nearly 8 million barrels a day.) The nuclear industry does not appear to be growing largely because waste disposal has proven nearly unresolvable, but also because of political and technical problems. Nuclear also appears to be one of the most expensive energy options. But even if U.S. nuclear power plant capacity were doubled by 1990, it would still supply less than 7 percent of our energy demand, according to Energy Future. A potential energy shortfall in the next decade seems assured. "One of the most compelling arguments for conservation is the higher cost of not conserving," said the National Academy of Sciences in a 1979 study. Most experts agree that the high cost and low availability of conventional energy supplies will force conservation. A study group sponsored by the Ford Foundation concluded in Energy: The Next Twenty Years that "both in the short and the long run, energy conservation is often the cleanest, quickest, and cheapest way to react to inevitable higher energy costs . . . conservation will inevitably, become one of the most important energy 'sources' quantitatively." James F. Flug, director and counsel of the Energy Action Education Foundation, says, "If we can make one barrel of oil go twice as far, that's as good as finding an extra barrel of oil — better really because the second barrel is still there to be found. . . . Stretching conventional energy supplies means stretching the benefits of their lower costs [assuming effective price controls], it means reducing the demand side of the supply-demand balance, thus reducing upward pressure on price, and it means stretching the time that we have to select, perfect and mass produce whatever technology really does become our next generation of energy . . . ." State powers Conservation strategies are ready for development now. No technological breakthrough, economic shift or lag time is required. "To choose conservation does not mean any production options must be jettisoned. Rather it means that conservation joins the rank of major energy resources — alongside of conventional fossil fuels and nuclear power — and deserves the full range of incentives and standards government can provide to further its growth," 8/September 1980/Illinois Issues says Common Cause, the citizen's lobbyist group, in its report, The Path Not Taken: A Common Cause Study of State Energy Conservation Programs. That study, based on a survey of all state energy offices and the District of Columbia, pointed to the unique importance of state government efforts if conservation goals are to be appoached. The study concluded: "Because they are closer to the consumers who hold the potential of producing energy through conservation, states can chart conservation paths tailored to their specific needs and resources. States retain considerable power within our federal system of government to set electricity and natural gas prices, establish building codes, manage transportation planning, and set local land use restrictions."
Conservation goals of U.S. energy statutes are extremely diverse. The billion dollars in federal conservation funds to states have been channeled through four federal grant programs since 1975. To date, Illinois has three of those programs: (1) the state energy conservation program, established by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975 (P.L. 94-163); (2) the weatherization assistance program, established by the Energy Conservation and Production Act (ECPA) of 1975 (P.L. 94-385); and (3) the schools, hospitals, local government and public care institutions program, established under the National Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-619). The fourth program, successful in 10 other states, is called the energy extension service (EES) program. It was set up by the National Energy Extension Services Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-39) and is designed to advise small businesses and individuals on effective conservation opportunities. It is soon to go into effect in Illinois. A fifth program, called residential conservation service (RCS), is also slated for Illinois, but it has run into some controversy. RCS requires that electric and gas utilities offer all residential customers in-home energy audits, followed up by information and assistance in purchasing, installing and financing conservation materials or new energy systems based on renewable resources, such as solar hot water heaters or greenhouses. There is considerable controversy in Illinois about whether the utilities can or should be entrusted with interpretation of RCS requirements. Consumer groups charge that the state's 12 investor-owned utilities have already had far too great a voice in drawing up RCS plans for Illinois. They allege that Commonwealth Edison (the largest utility in the state) paid its own consulting firm to design the state plan that would ultimately and assuredly fail. The dilemma for utilities is that profits are based on sales. Conservation means slow growth or even a downturn unless there are rate increases or diversification by the utility. Whatever the plan, the most important energy office in Illinois is the Illinois Institute of Natural Resources (IINR). While six other agencies offer energy conservation services and information, IINR is the one responsible to the federal government for administering and implementing all federal energy conservation programs in Illinois. For calendar year 1980 the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has funded $3,934 million in various energy conservation programs through IINR. The bulk of the funds is for the state EPCA energy conservation program, and under terms set by Congress for EPCA, the states collectively must cut a least 5 percent from U.S. energy consumption in 1980. Illinois has set 5 percent as its goal, although other states have set goals ranging from 4.1 percent to 9.8 percent. The EPCA program
To develop an energy efficient purchasing program in 1980, IINR has received approximately $155,680 from DOE and has contracted with the purchasing division of the Illinois Department of Administrative Services to set product specifications that will guarantee conservation of energy. One set of specifications will be for conserving manufacturing energy, and the other for operating energy. To save September 1980/Illinois Issues/9
manufacturing energy, the rules will call for recyclable products. To conserve operating energy the cost of products will be calculated to include purchase price plus energy cost over the life of the product. Air conditioners and large lamps are already on the list of items that must be purchased with these life-cycle costs in mind. Other criteria for purchasing items to conserve energy include value incentive clauses to reward government purchases of energy efficient items; performance specifications to ensure that no procurement specification, in itself, wastes energy; and a post-purchase monitoring program to prevent wasteful operation or over-purchasing of property items. Purchasing plans Procurement specifications will also be presented to local governments which collectively spend $1 billion annually in Illinois. This is 10 times the state purchasing division's $100 million a year budget. Obviously, the statewide effect of conservation by local governments could be significant. IINR says that much of what is purchased by local governments is susceptible to energy conservation, such as light bulbs and air conditioners. IINR is providing local officials with what amounts to comparison shopping tips through technical information on various products and purchasing techniques. The procurement plan — dull as it sounds — will save over twice the energy of car pools, van pools and improved public transportation. IINR estimates 1980 energy savings of 4.57 trillion Btus for efficient procurement by the stae and local governments, contrasted with 1.86 trillion Btus saved from car and van pooling. A major objective of the program in 1980 will be to find long-term strategies to end people's dependence upon the automobile, so that by 1990 there will be a major cut in fuel consumed by autos. Initially, IINR will promote ride sharing plans for employers with more than 500 employees per shift, including the state government in Springfield. In 1980 the goal is to remove 29,000 cars from the roads during peak traffic hours and to organize as many as 9,100 new car pools. More important than initial savings, however, could be the winning of public support. If the initial promotion efforts catch the attention and support of top-level executives and community leaders, public service advertising could continue the promotion to gain overall public support to "share a ride." One stumbling block to van pooling by private companies is the question of liability. Lack of legal precedents leaves unclear the extent of liability for unrated van drivers. A related problem is insurance underwriting, which should be coordinated to help spread the potential claim loss. The big savings in ride sharing will only come if it becomes the "thing to do." If it does, huge quantities of energy will be saved since 15 to 20 percent of the fossil fuels consumed in the U.S. are for trips to and from work. Illinois has been slow to enact mandatory energy efficient thermal and lighting standards, at least by statute. Federal law requires strict standards for lighting efficiency in new and existing commercial and public buildings, and thermal standards for new residential, commercial and public buildings. But so far the Illinois legislature has rejected every measure designed to set them. However, the Illinois Capital Development Board has set the policy for new state-owned buildings, which must now meet the federal standards developed in 1975 by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. Known as ASHRAE 90-75, these standards are also being used by the Illinois Commerce Commission as a pre-condition of utility service to new construction projects. Also, the Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs and the Illinois Municipal League have promoted ASHRAE 90-75 codes to municipal and county governments statewide. But just as the ASHRAE 90-75 standards were beginning to be accepted for new buildings throughout the state, the U.S. DOE made federal energy performance standards 20 percent tougher. These Building Energy Performance Standards, issued in mid-1980 (but not yet required of states), limit the number of Btus per square foot per year that a new building can burn, depending on the size and location of the building. For example, Chicago office buildings containing 50,000 square feet or more are limited to 113,000 Btus per square foot, and for office buildings under 50,000 square feet, the limit is 104,000 Btus per square foot. (Building components may differ in their energy efficiency so long as the entire building uses less than the limit.) The effect of these limits, architects say, will be fewer skyscrapers. "The [a portion of this article is missing from our hard copy version] planning department at Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, a Chicago architectural firm. The new 17-story State of Illinois Building in Chicago meets the new federal standards. It is squat and sprawling, with an emhasis on reflective glass and an impressive interior atrium to capture daylight. The architect, Helmut Jahn, is much sought-after in Chicago. Thermal efficiency standards IINR estimates that 7.3 trillion Btus will be saved during 1980 as a result of implementing the thermal efficiency standards, and another 5.7 trillion Btus will be saved through lighting efficiency standards. Of this total amount, 1.4 trillion Btus should be saved by local governments, many of which are adopting an Illinois-specific code, known as the Champaign Code. A precise and easy to use document, 10/September 1980/Illinois Issues developed in Champaign, it offers many innovations. It allows twice as much window space on the south side of new buildings if a roof overhang keeps out the high summer sun. These south windows act as passive solar heat collectors in winter, and the overhangs block out the sun in the summer. Passive solar orientation is also encouraged by the Champaign Code by allowing more window area when two or three sheets of glass are used. The Champaign Code is not only in compliance with ASHRAE 90-75 standards; but it's better. Local governments, however, are reluctant to adopt thermal and lighting efficiency standards, according to IINR officials, until the DOE Building and Energy Performance Standards are adopted by the state. Some localities have adopted ASHRAE 90-75; DeKalb, Hazel Crest and St. Clair County were among the first. Yet despite a requirement that states establish the new federal total performance standards by mid-1981, one Department of Commerce and Community Affairs official expects "the legislature will drag its feet on this like it did on ASHRAE because the building industry doesn't want any more regulations." The federal EPCA program was meant to pave the way for successful conservation programs in the states. It has succeeded rather well. To supplement the mandatory programs, states have instituted approximately 700 conservation programs on their own initiative. It has been abused, too, as in Illinois where Associated Press reporter Deborah Singer uncovered the fact last February that IINR had purchased at least $180,000 worth of furniture with EPCA funds. The EPCA program, however, is about to be phased out and surplanted by EES, a program to provide technical help to local communities on how to conserve energy. In Illinois, a controversy has developed on how IINR will administer EES funds: $988,900 in calendar year 1980 with expectations of $4 to $5 million dollars over the next five years. Richard Archer, a solar advocate who teaches design at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, says that IINR "wants to use EES money to fund the closed-out EPCA positions." As Archer sees it, IINR is just trying to create another bureaucracy without channeling the funds to communities. Archer wrote a scathing letter to IINR Director Frank Beal in January blasting the agency for coming up with a weak plan and for giving utilities too large an input into developing the plan. "EES is yet another example of the incompetence of IINR. Your agency has known for several months that this state plan was due on February 19, 1980. Yet you now tell me that I have 10 days to phone in a comment on a plan I have yet to see . . . ," wrote Archer. The Local Government Energy Advisory Committee, made up of local officials from all over the state, also blasted IINR's lack of public input when planning EES. They were angered specifically by their own exclusion from the process. IINR staff privately admit that Archer and the committee members were "overlooked." But they say they mailed the plan to from 120 to 150 concerned groups, including Land of Lincoln Legal Aid and other consumer groups, and received only 17 replies. Archer disagrees and charges that IINR only sent the EES plan to 17 places. Frank Beal admits that there was not enough public input in forming the EES proposal but defends the substance of the final plan. "What I chose to do was not create a new agency . . . the objectives of EES are very parallel [to EPCA]. And there's some concern on the outside that we're feathering our own nests by keeping our staff employed. I'll grant it, but that's not a criticism: I happen to believe in the value of what these people are doing. . . . Why shouldn't they be funded and continue to make a contribution? And as for the notion that the money's better off decentralized; I'm not so sure, given the number of local governments in this state. What would you do with $900,000 distributed to 1,200 municipal governments?" argues Beal. There are four programs underway with EES money in Illinois. The four programs and their shares of the total $988,900 funding for calendar year 1980 are (1) alchohol fuel utilization, $93,237; (2) commercial and industrial energy conservation, $94,621; (3) residential energy conservation, $393,202; and (4) solar power utilization, $296,058. Technical and educational assistance is provided by IINR for each program, and energy audits are being conducted for the two conservation programs. The audit technique used for energy conservation in homes was developed by DOE. It is called Project Conserve and consists of a questionnaire about existing insulation, type of energy used for heating, what windows and doors a home has, etc. Forms are distributed free to all customers by utilities and lending institutions, who also pay the printing, distributing and processing costs. The forms are also distributed through a supplemental system of county extension offices, community development departments, service organizations, etc. In one case a newspaper in Peoria printed 100,000 questionnaires as part of its daily edition. Over a three-year period IINR hopes to make the audit available to every homeowner in Illinois. Energy audits The average return rate so far is slightly above 5.5 percent, which is considered a good rate for most kinds of mailings. IINR is processing about 2,000 forms a month, and it is estimated that 18 trillion Btus can be saved each year if homeowners act on IINR recommendations. Information on costs and savings of do-it-yourself or contractor-installed devices to save energy is provided to all who return the audit form. But there is no guarantee that people will put up the storm windows, insulate the ceiling, install weather stripping or set back thermostats. Yet it may be worth the state effort since the audit cost is relatively low: distributors pay 50¢ to 59¢ per questionnaire processed and IINR pays 98¢ each. But some critics feel that the Project September 1980/Illinois Issues/11 Conserve audits under EES will subvert the new Residential Conservation Service (RCS), requiring mandatory on-site audits by utilities for all their customers. "Why develop the 'Class B' audit form any further when it will not be acceptable under the RCS program?" asks Richard Archer. Archer says that the planning process for RCS, like EES, excluded all but the utilities. He is angered by the fact that IINR contracted with Booz Allen & Hamilton, a consulting firm in Bethesda, Md., to create an RCS plan. IINR admits it paid $30,000 to hire the firm and that a consortium of utilities, led by Commonwealth Edison, paid the largest portion of the bill — nearly $47,000. But IINR said its reason was to establish a working document as a basis for public input. Archer says, "They wanted a pro-utility plan and they got it; the best thing that can be said about it from the utilities' viewpoint is that it is designed to fail." Archer, president of the Illinois Solar Resource Advisory Council and a DOE consultant, has been IINR's harshest critic. He says the intent of Congress on RCS was that solar development would be encouraged by utilities, but that Illinois utilities want the solar section written out of the Illinois plan. "One thing you do with an energy audit is a solar audit. [You] tell people what they can do cheaply with solar." Archer believes that the utilities' commitment to coal and nuclear power will bring them to use their political influence to squelch solar development. Six public hearings on RCS were scheduled but IINR staff people were disappointed with the first three hearings where only five people made comments, according to Ruth Heckethorn, an IINR spokeswoman. Two more meetings were set for July, and a final one August 18 in Chicago. Heckethorn says the planning process is also "pretty prescriptive — there are a hundred and fifty-one pages of federal rules describing how exactly the state plan must function." Although the residential program has its problems, commercial and industrial energy conservation is in full swing. A lot more energy is being saved here than in any other program. Industry has established the best conservation record to date among major energy consuming sectors. It has the strong motivation to conserve so fuel costs won't lower business profits. Since 1973 nationwide, according to Harvard's Energy Future, industrial use of energy has dropped by 6 percent, while industrial output has increased by 12 percent. Boiler checks The Illinois program focuses on publicizing innovative conservation techniques and helping companies assess their conservation potential. Members of an energy outreach team will conduct 100 on-site demonstration audits this year in the highest priority industrial firms. They will also conduct technical and auditor training workshops in each part of the state. These workshops will be tailored for key groups of commercial and industrial building managers and their maintenance staff, including housekeeping supervisors and heating, ventilation and air conditioning personnel.
The goal in 1980 is to establish energy conservation programs in 27 percent of the 1,057.8 million square feet of industrial space in Illinois, and in 29.7 percent of the 1,866 million square feet of commercial space. Energy savings by participants should come to 93 trillion Btus this year (36 trillion Btus in commercial facilities and 57 trillion Btus in industrial). Total annual U.S. energy consumption is around 80,000 trillion Btus of which 4,000 trillion is used in Illinois. Illinois' 15,000 industries use 1,057.8 trillion Btus a year, and commercial buildings use 608.9 trillion Btus. The U.S. DOE will give $6 million or more in grants to schools and hospitals in Illinois this year to pay for energy audits and capital improvements to conserve energy. In all, 201 institutions will receive funds, including about 30 hospitals. More money had been promised — $8.6 million for schools alone — but the funds were lost when Congress and Carter decided to attempt to balance the budget. "Energy conservation in schools is a paying proposition," says IINR Director Beal. "It is possible through daily attention to lighting, heating and other consuming activities to save up to $37 million of the $150 million now being spent each year for energy in Illinois schools," Beal says. Expected energy savings for the schools and hospitals program in 1980 totals 37.34 trillion Btus, according to IINR which administers the program. Total energy used in all schools, universities and hospitals in Illinois is 134.8 trillion Btus per year. The federal weatherization program is administered in Illinois by the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs (DCCA). It provides subsidies to weatherize low-income residences. DCCA allocates funds to local governments and community development agencies that carry out the weatherization — which includes caulking, weather-stripping, insulation, and storm windows and doors. Through 1979 nationwide, 240,000 dwellings were weatherized under this program at a cost of $290 million. In Illinois in 1980 about 8,500 homes will be weatherized at a cost of $11 million. This federal ECPA program will probably help less than 10 percent of low-income households eligible for financial grants. A related program, the Home 12/September 1980/Illinois Issues
Energy Assistance Program, will distribute about $100 million (paid by the oil windfall profits tax and allocated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) in Illinois grants to low-income families to help pay energy bills. Last year the standard grant was $300 to families which qualified. Renters also are eligible for direct assistance up to $100 in vouchers for food, clothing or blankets. Total households helped in 1979 were approximately 67,000. This year the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs is gearing up to supply weatherization information and technical aid to every family and individual who qualifies for funds. Grassroots conflict The various conservation programs underway in the state and nation have one underlying conflict: traditional centralized administrators are at odds with community and neighborhood energy conservation advocates. Many grassroots conservation organizations, which have been innovative and effective, feel that conservation defies a centralized approach. While they welcome federal and state funding and expertise, they dislike central planning which they say is politically controlled by special interests. Archer is perhaps the most vocal critic in Illinois and says, "I'm sick and tired of Commonwealth Edison calling the energy shots in this state." "It seems odd to grant private utilities the authority to enforce conservation measures when their big problem is too much generating capacity," explains Sangamon State University physics professor Al Casella, who is performing an all-sources energy audit of Springfield with funds from the National Science Foundation. Other groups that have been critical of IINR include the Hawkweed Group of Chicago, Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation (which provides legal services for poor people downstate and does a lot of litigation against utilities), the Shawnee Solar Project of Carbondale, the Acorn Appropriate Technology Group, and the Springfield Energy Coalition. IINR can point to many successful community conservation efforts that it has led. Last year more than $100,000 was awarded to 10 Illinois communities for a variety of measures that included: recycling, energy efficient building code development, workshops on conservation techniques, training in construction of solar greenhouses and setting up energy management libraries. The most successful projects of this Community Energy Conservation Grant Awards Program were at Maywood, Pembroke, Carbondale and Evanston. All used a mix of approaches tailored to their population, resources and environment. The program at Pembroke produced the most community enthusiasm. Solar greenhouses were constructed, a recycling system was established for solid and agricultural wastes, steps were taken toward ethanol production and solar production manufacturing, and an energy technology library was set up. IINR found the residents of Pembroke very interested in achieving energy self-reliance because the village is poor (unemployment as high as 35 percent) and because of a long, proud history of cooperative effort and conservation. Pembroke already had a used lumber yard and a food and clothing co-op. But, residents did not respond well to IINR's impersonal energy bulletins or surveys; they wanted specific advice in person or in small, informal workshops. And IINR adapted. At the heart of the conflict over centralization versus decentralization is the role of utilities and state utility commissions on electricity policies. Nearly one-third of the nation's energy is consumed in the form of electricity, and for two decades utilities have generally encouraged more electricity use through advertising and discounts to large consumers. Sales have tripled over the past 20 years. But now that the nation requires energy conservation, many state utility commissions have continued to price electricity as though it were still cheap to produce and its sources were plentiful. Utility commission Like most states, Illinois is beginning to open up its state utility commission to new policies of energy conservation. The Illinois Commerce Commission (IlCC) has recently begun to allow utilities to recover conservation program costs in their rates. Utilities submit for IlCC approval any cost-effective conservation investment they wish to make. They must at least consider ceiling insulation for residential gas heating customers, and retrofitting major appliances with intermittent ignition devices. In addition, IlCC has required time-of-day pricing of electricity on a trial basis by three utilities. Under this system, customers pay more for electricity used during a peak demand period and less during off-peak hours. Present daytime peak demands are often met by using older, less efficient gas turbines and oil-burning generators that are costlier to operate than nuclear and coal-burning plants. Coal and nuke plants account for 64 and 27 percent respectively of electrical generation in Illinois. IlCC has not followed the example of New York and California by adopting marginal cost pricing, whereby rates are set for one or more classes of customers on the basis of the actual cost of providing additional units of power. In Illinois, the cost of building new and more expensive power plants is rolled into each utility's overall costs and then divided among ratepayers — with large users getting a bargain. Thus the ratepayer is financing added power production as well as the current cost of the utility's existing operation. Critics say this discourages conservation; however, it does keep electricity rates low, helping low-income residents. IlCC also continues to allow the price advantage utilities give their September 1980/Illinois Issues/13 largest users. This practice, called declining block rates, allows best customers to pay less for each added block of energy they devour. Such rates are in inverse proportion to the cost of supplying additional energy, and they are an incentive to use more. Six states have banned such rates; 16 have curtailed their use. 'Fair' performance The recent Common Cause study of state energy conservation efforts rated Illinois' performance to date "fair." Like most states Illinois appears to be doing rather well at organizing a conservation office and encouraging conservation in industry and efficiency standards for buildings through programs with federal funds. The legislature has just passed incentives for gasohol, but Illinois has no system for auto inspection to assure cars are running efficiently — and safely. Public transportation overall is not very effective in the U.S., and mass transit has its own problems in the Chicago area. Large, crippling shortages lie ahead unless energy use practices change soon. Long-term trends need to be reversed, including shifts to more efficient modes of transportation — from car to transit, from car and air to bus and rail, and from truck to rail. In some cases communication modes may substitute for transportation. In Illinois the role of the private utilities and the IlCC seems crucial to the success of conservation efforts. Essentially federal programs are asking utilities to cutback their sales (and hence profits) mainly through better insulation of their heating customers' homes and by ending outmoded pricing policies. This raises questions like: can and should the utilities survive and thrive in their accustomed role; will they adapt; and what incentives to change can they discover? Only recently has the IlCC begun to become open and accountable to the public. The extent of its new consumer-oriented role will soon be openly tested as it tries to administer the Energy Extension Service and Residential Conservation Service federal conservation programs. Gary Adkins is a free-lance writer and former legislative correspondent for Illinois Issues from 1977-1979. 14/September 1980/Illinois Issues |
|
|
