Doering, Otto C., III

English

Research Papers in Economics

DEVELOPING  AN ENERGY  POLICY EDUCATION
PROGRAM
Otto C. Doering III
Extension Economist
Purdue University
It  is  important  to  begin  with  some  idea  of  what  our  energy
situation  will be  in  the  future.
Supplies  of fossil  energy  are  assumed  to  be  finite.  It  is  further
assumed  that  we  have  already  discovered  and  utilized  the  most
convenient  and  easily  tapped  of  our  supplies  of  petroleum  and
natural  gas.  We  are  finding  additional  increments  of  oil  and
natural gas  more  and  more  difficult  and  costly  to  find  and  exploit.
Over  the  next  several  decades  we  are  expected  to  face
decreasing  availability  of our  once  abundand  domestic  supplies  of
petroleum  and  natural  gas.  Barring  embargos  of  one  sort  or
another,  petroleum  imports  probably  will  serve  to  take  up  the
immediate  slack  for  that  fuel,  insofar  as  our  balance  of payments
permits.  No  such  solution  is  expected  for  natural  gas,  given  the
inherent  technical  and  economic  difficulties  in  transporting  and
utilizing  imported  liquefied  natural  gas.
Another  factor  that  compels  one  to  look  ahead  for  a  period
where  demand  outruns  supply  is  the  refusal  by  the  body  politic  to
pay  increasing  costs  for  energy  coincidentally  with  decreasing
supplies.
Even  if  some  idealized  free  market  were  operational,  it  is
terribly  difficult  to postulate  how such  a market  should function  for
the  case  of declining  resources.  How  much  is  a  current  generation
willing  to  pay  to allow  some  of these  declining  resources  to  remain
available  for  future  generations?
Some  of the  market  solutions  suggested  for  this  dilemma  are
marginal  costs  or  marginal  price  schemes.  These,  however,  just
raise  a  host  of new  problems-from  windfall  profits  to  the  rapid
technical  shifts  that  would  be  necessitated  if resources  were  priced
on  such  a  basis.
What  is  being  suggested  is  continuing  supply-demand  imbal-
ance  tending,  over  the  long  run,  towards  scarcity  of  energy
resources.  Furthermore,  solar,  nuclear  and  other  new  or  high
technology  supply  factors  are  not  expected  to  make  much  of  an
106impact  over  the  next  several  decades.  Given  this  situation,  let  us
consider  for  a  moment  some  specific  characteristics  of  extension
education  that  are  critically  impacted  by  the energy  dilemma.
One  of  the  major  concerns  of  the  extension  educator  is  the
identification  of  the  "teachable  moment",  the  time  when  our
clientele  is  most  receptive  to  new  ideas.  It  can  be,  and  often  is,
quite  specific  with  respect  to  time,  location,  and  subject.  The
existence  and  identification  of this "teachable  moment"  for  energy
policy  education  is  one  of our  greatest  problems.
An  excellent  current  example  is  the  difference  between  energy
extension  programs  directed  towards  households  in  the  Midwest  as
compared  with  the  New  England  states.  Housing  specialists  and
home  economists  in  New  England  have  developed  innovative
educational  programs  on energy  conservation  and are reaching  wide
audiences.  There  is  also  considerable  interest  in  energy  policy.
In  the  Midwest,  almost  all  programs  are  either  stillborn  or  in
suspended  animation.  Household  audiences  there  are  not interested
in  energy conservation  or  policy  education  programs  when  they  are
served  primarily  by  regulated,  low  priced  natural  gas.  In  contrast,
high  heating  oil  prices  and  very  real  shortages  under the  embargo
have  stimulated  a whole  series  of "teachable  moments"  in  the  New
England  states.
In  much  of  the  country  the  energy  dilemma  has  no  real
credibility  as  a public  policy education  issue.  Yet,  many  of  us  feel
very  strongly  that it  certainly  is  real  enough  and  that  it  is  vital  for
the  public  to  become  informed  about  it.
A  second  concern  to  extension  education  is  that  of  research
support for energy  policy or other energy  programs.  Those  of us  in
the  agricultural  establishment  almost  take  this  for  granted  within
agriculture.  Persons  involved  in  energy extension  will  have  to  draw
upon  a  vast  array  of diverse  information  if they  are  to  be  able  to
undertake  their jobs  successfully.
Given  the  intensity  of  feeling  that  is  bound  to  develop  about
different  policy  alternatives,  someone  involved  in  energy  extension
will find  it  difficult  to  draw  appropriate  information  from  warring
factions.  An  example  is  the lack  of  "middle  ground"  information
on  the  nuclear-non-nuclear  power  plant  debate.  How  is  the
extension  educator  to treat  a  new  technology  when  the  only  source
of  information  might  be  the  federal  agency  that  is  promoting  its
adoption  or the environmental  group  trying  to  stop it?
To  some  extent  the  appropriate  technical  information  must  be
107both readily  available  and  reflect  local  needs  and  conditions.  There
should  be  a  large  number  of  competent  researchers  with
responsiblities  similar  to  extension  specialists  for  interpretation  of
existing research  and the initiation  of appropriate  applied  research.
In conservation  or  in the adoption  of new  technology,  much  of this
research  support  probably  will  have  to  come  from  schools  of
engineering  associated  with Land  Grant  University  centers.
One  major  problem  will  be  changing  the  current  engineering
school  orientation  from  viewing  the  solution  of practical  problems
as a profitable  consulting  opportunities  to viewing them  as part of a
public  responsibility.  This  has  been  accomplished  in  some  cases.
Outstanding  examples  are  the  engineering  extension  services  of
Texas  and Missouri.
Any  effort  on  the  part  of  the  extension  educator  to  push  a
particular  technology  carries  with  it  an  inherent  danger.  We  are
used  to developing  alternatives  for  policy  education.  We  are  going
to  have  to  adopt  the  same  approach  with  respect  to  alternative
technologies.  Energy  extension  educators  must  have  support  from
specialists  who  are  free  to  test  a  product  or  technology
independently  of it  development.
The extension  educator  must be  free  to  make judgments  about
technologies  which  he,  in  concert  with  the  independent  specialist,
may  believe  are  inappropriate  for  his  clientele.  If  it  is  only  an
implementing  appendage  of  specific  research  and  development
effort,  energy  conservation  or  policy  extension  will  be  seen  as  a
propaganda  effort.
A  great  deal  of  stress  has  been  placed  upon  "technical"
considerations.  This  has  not  been  of much  concern  to  us  in  many
areas  of public  policy education  in  the recent  past.  We  are  used  to
looking at  areas  of human  choice  within  some  known  technological
parameters.  Thus,  one  of the most important  questions  is,  how  can
we  cope  with  the  breadth  of  the  energy  dilemma?  It  presents  a
broader  range  of technical  and  institutional  questions  than  we  are
generally  used  to  dealing  with.
Many  of our  public  choice  alternatives  depend  upon  futuristic
assessments  of  technology.  If we  make  these  assessments  highly
specific,  we  will severely  limit our  range  of alternatives.  If we make
them too  general,  our public  policy alternatives  will be so  numerous
as  to be  impossible  to  analyze.
We  are  faced  with  a  true  Goldilocks  dilemma.  We  need  to  hit
the "just right"  technology  porridge the  first time.  Then we  have to
be  able  to  analyze  human  and  institutional  alternatives  and
consequences  within  the  appropriate  technology  environment.
108Many  believe that  we are  locked  into  energy  dilemma  solutions
by  the  technological  fixes  considered  appropriate  (according  to
conventional  wisdom)  for  a given  environment.  These  solutions  are
sometimes  very unattractive  to  many,  but  the technocrats  patiently
explain  that these  represent  our  only  viable  way  out.
Whole  human  and  institutional  problems  get  tied  firmly  to  one
unique  technical  fix  and  are  determined  by  it.  Here  the  public
policy  educator  has  a  very  special  role.  The  range  of  reasonable
choice  is  extensive  if  education  can  take  place  and  if  the
appropriate  institutions  can  be devised.
The situation might be sketched  in this way:  there  are  a myriad
of  technologies  which  singly  or  jointly  might  help  us.  However,
there  are just  a  handful  of powerful  groups  wanting  to convince  us
that  their single  solution  is  the  appropriate  technical  fix.
Ultimately,  a better  informed  public  (one  having  both technical
and  economic  literacy)  plus  some  new  institutional  arrangements
(or some  flexibility  with  old  ones)  should  enable  us  to  consider  a
range  of solutions.
It might  be  worthwhile  going  through  an  example  of this  kind
of technical  and institutional  hybrid  which  can  yield  a viable  policy
alternative.
Recently,  the  public  advocates  of the  New  York  and  New  Jersey
Public  Service  Commissions  had  Dubin-Mindell-Bloome  Associates,
a leading  engineering  consulting  firm,  undertake  a  broad  study  of
power  requirements  for  some  areas  within  these  two  states.  The
request  for  the  study  resulted  from  applications  by  the  major
electric  utilities  for  the  construction  of  new  generating  plant
capacity.
As  with  any  estimate  of energy  needs  there  were  a  number  of
assumptions  that  could  be  made  about  future  demand.  The  result
was  high  demand  estimates  from  the  electric  utilities.  This
conflicted  with  the  no-growth  scenario  of environmental  and  other
groups.
At  this  point  of  demand  estimation  the  battle  lines  are  now
being drawn.  If we  will not  need increasing  amounts of power,  then
the plant does  not need to be built.  Conversely,  if the  power will  be
needed,  then  we  will  have  to  obtain  it  from  somewhere,  and  the
plant  will have  to be built.  A  clear  set  of policy  choices  is  present.
What  more  could  a public  policy  educator  wish  for?
The  Dubin  group  did  not  approach  the  problem  from  the
conventional  perspective.  They looked  at different technical  alterna-
tives  and  asked,  what  would  happen  if  we  were  to  undertake  a
109program  of  making  the  households  and  buildings  more  energy
efficient  in  those  places  served  by  the  utilities  involved?
Thus,  through  some  mechanism  they  hypothesized,  existing
buildings  in  Long  Island  and  New  Jersey  were  reconditioned  to
improve  their  energy  efficiency.  Also  new  buildings  were  con-
structed  so  as  to meet  certain  energy  efficiency  standards.
The  overwhelming  technical  conclusion  of  the  Dubin  report  is
that  more  than  enough  energy  could  be  saved  through  application
of  existing  conservation  technology  than  the  required  growth  to
meet  future energy  demands  hypothesized  by the  utilities.
This  demand  growth  was  the  rationale  for  the  construction  of
new  generating  capacity.  Thus,  if an  energy  conservation  program
were  initiated,  the  new  generating  capacity  would  not  be  required.
These  results  held  for a  number  of decades,  even  when  based  upon
the  most  inflationary  demand-growth  estimates.
What  the  Dubin  firm  did,  of course,  was  to  start  where  there
were  only  two  alternatives  and  create  a  third.  Their  approach
should  be  intriguing  to  public  policy  specialists,  because  the
limiting  factors  became  behavioral  and  institutional  constraints
rather  than resource  constraints.
The  amount  of capital  necessary  for  improving  energy  efficiency
in  the  service  area was  less than  that required  for  the  construction
of the  new  power  plants  proposed  by  the  utilities.  To  make  the
third  alternative  operational,  the questions  to be  answered  are:  how
do  we  tap  capital  markets  for  unconventional  purposes  as
effectively  as utilities tap  them  for new  plant construction?  How  do
we  accomplish  the  remodeling  "retrofitting"  over  such  a  widely
dispersed  number  of  individually  owned  buildings?  The  potential
payoff is  that if we  can  tackle  these  questions  successfully  it  would
result  in  a  reduction  of our  energy  resource  requirements  to  meet
future  needs.
As  energy  resources  become  scarcer,  educators  are  more  and
more  likely  to  be  entering  an  arena  where  there  is  already  a
substantial  degree  of polarization.  One  of the  best  ways  to  tackle
this  situation  would  be  to  look  for  third  alternatives.  However,
timing  is  critical,  because  resource  expenditures  for  energy
development  or  transmission are  so  massive  that sunk  costs  tend to
loom  heavy  over  decision  making.  Once  the  power  plant  is
built,  there  is  no  turning  back.  The  course  has  been  set  by  that
massive  investment.
A critical  question  is whether  we  will  reach  a  teachable  moment
110with  the general  public before  the  massive  investment  of  resources
in  special  technical  fixes  already  has  been  made.  It  is  easy  to  be
pessimistic  on  this  score.  The  body  politic's  unwillingness  to  pay
the  increasing  cost  of  scarce  resources  delays  any  realization  of
their actual  present  or future  cost.
Solutions  that  can  be  undertaken  by  bureaucracies  or  cor-
porations  already  in  command  of  vast  resources  appear  easier  to
the  individual than those  which might  have to  touch his  own  wants
and habits.
In a somewhat similar environment,  a number  of our  colleagues
involved  in  community  development  work  have  attempted  to  focus
their  educational  efforts  upon  key  decision  makers  within  the
community.  This  has  always  bothered  egalitarian  sensibilities.  I
have  often  wondered  if we  were  merely  playing  the  political  game
and accomplishing  the  possible,  even  if it was  not coincidental  with
the best  interests  of the  community  as  a whole.
There  is  an  analogy  to  the  situation  we  face  with  respect  to
energy.  Many  decision  makers  already  have  their  fingers  deep  in
the pie.  Most  of the general  public is  unconcerned.  By the time  the
public  does  become  concerned  the  massive  resource  allocations  will
have  been  made,  and  one  course  or  another  will  have  been  set.
Given  this  dilemma,  I  believe  that  there  are  some  important
activities  for  public  policy  educators.  We  must:
1.  Continue to work with our public  clientele  and try  to interest
them  in  the  energy  issue  at  the  slightest  glimmer  of  a  teachable
moment.  If our  weather  is colder  than  average  this  winter  we  may
well  get  spot  shortages  of natural  gas  in  the  Midwest.  We  should
resist the temptation  to be  proved  wrong  by trying  to predict  them,
but  should  they  materialize  utilize  the  opportunity  to  educate
people  about  resource  scarcity.
2.  Begin  to  work  with  energy  policy  decision  makers.  Most
important,  generate  and challenge  them to seriously  consider  "third
alternatives"  of the  sort  the  Dubin  firm  supplied.  We  should  be
able to do as  well or better than  the  raft of consultants  that federal
energy  agencies  hire  to  do their  thinking.  We  certainly  should  be
more  in  touch  with  the  complexity  of  human  and  institutional
arrangements  that are  the  key  to  new  alternatives.
3.  Attempt  to  get  the  full  range  of talents  at  our  Land  Grant
Universities  interested  in  the  energy  dilemma  and  involved  on  a
public  service  basis.  This  is  an  uphill  fight,  especially  with
engineering  schools  used  to consulting  fees  and  a  reward  structure
111based  solely  upon  research  results.  But  you  will  be  making  a  vast
public  contribution  if  you  succeed  in  opening  one  small  avenue  of
cooperation  and  public  service.
Finally,  it  might  be  informative  to  look  at  the  comparative
priorities  of another  country  dependent  upon  foreign  oil.  Sweden  is
spending several  dollars per capita upon energy  research  of the  sort
that  our  Energy  Research  and  Development  Administration  is
undertaking.  They  are  also  spending  $25  per  capita  on  public
education  and  outreach  programs,  basically  energy  extension.  The
Swedes  recognize  that  they  have  enough  proven  technology
available  to make  substantial  differences  in  their  energy  consump-
tion.
The  problem  for  all  of  us  is  getting  this  kind  of  technology
applied  by individuals  on  a broad  scale.
112

DEVELOPING AN ENERGY POLICY EDUCATION PROGRAM

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics