CHAPTER 3

ENERGY CONSERVATION IN PERSONAL TRANSPORT

IN THE BAY AREA

John Nakamura

Unlike the highly centralized development of land scarce countries such as Japan, much of urban Californiadevelpment is characterized by low density sprawl. This Inefficient pattern of growth leads to long car tripsfor commuting, shopping, and visiting. Heavy Industrial development In California has not been as extensive asIn many other states, and California's mild climate leads to relatively light heating and cooling needs. Thenet result Is that transportation requires an unusually high proportion of California energy.

The heavy concentration of energy In the transportation sector has disadvantages and advantages. About95% of the energy used for transportation comes from petroleum. Hence, a sudden major disruption of oil supplies would deliver a serious blow to the transportation sector. On the other hand, there 1s much room for

energy conservation without drastic curtailment of lifestyles or economic welfare. This paper concentrates on

energy conservation in transportation for the nine county Bay Area. First, let us look at a brief history ofthe development of the Bay Area and Its ties to the dominant mode of transportation in use.

Earliest settlement of the Bay Region depended on the bay as a transportation route. Consequently, roost

towns were located on the bay or on navigable tributaries of the bay. Later, the coming of the railroad augmented the ferry boats as a mode of transportation.

Amajor shift in patterns of growth and development of the region was brought about by the coming of the

automobile. Before the automobile was widely used, settlement was primarily close enough to rail and ferry

terminals making carriage trips or walking a reasonable possibility. This led to high density zones around

terminals and low density zones everywhere else. As the auto made Tong distance commuting possible, people

began to leave the high density areas clustered around train and ferry terminals. The convenience and flexi

bility of the auto encouraged business to move away from the city where land was much cheaper. The auto could

then be counted on to transport workers from the city outward as well as from the surrounding area to work or

shop.

In the East Bay, the boring of the Caldecott Tunnel made possible the development of once isolated areas.

Development in southern Marin Country was extended by the Golden Gate Bridge, but was limited by the steep hills

1n the area. Along the flatter areas, small towns that had been previously linked by rail, ferry, and carriages

were now able to expand at a rapid rate. This occurred In the areas of Oakland, Berkeley, and San Leandro as

well as in Redwood City, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Mountain View and San Jose. Finally, auto-related development

contributed to the low-density suburban tracts that have gradually filled in the once agriculturally-Hch

Santa Clara Valley.

Thus, 1t Is clear that our present land use patterns, and our very lifestyle, are dependent on the auto-

related development of the last forty to forty-five years. In the Bay Area, development since the building of

the Bay and Golden Gate bridges has insured that we would be almost wholly dependent on the highly flexible

transport offered by the auto and the system of roads, freeways, traffic control, and parking lots (in addition

to the economic infrastructure) that support its use.

As of February 2, 1977, 2,457,732 automobiles were registered in the nine county Bay Area. According to a104

r

I

"

•

r

1975 Bay Area Air Pollution Control District report, 5,051,200 gallons of gasoline are consumed daily by these

automobiles. With these figures in mind, let us turn to conservation as related to the automobile.

Since we are not likely to abandon the convenience, privacy, and flexibility of the auto, efforts Bust

center about energy conservation. The auto Industry has already taken the posture that the means of circum

venting the short term energy problem is to redesign the auto to achieve greater fuel economy. There are a

number of interacting factors that contribute to the performance and fuel economy of the auto such as weight

reductions, engine aids, fewer comfort auxiliaries, and aerodynamic aids.

Weight reductions:

Auto weight is the most important determinant in fuel economy. Most improvements in this area of valuable

design require no new technology, and Implementation requires only a decision to begin. Lightweight aluminum

in place of steel and substitution of plastics where possible will reduce vehicle weight significantly. On

the 1977 Ford Pinto, use of aluminum bumpers in place of the former Iron ones makes for an approximate one hun

dred pound saving. This weight reduction not only means Increased miles per gallon, but also better perform

ance.

This year General Motors has taken bold action by reducing the size of its full-size models by an average

of six hundred pounds. Historically, most people have preferred "more car" for their money. The trauma of

oil shortage resulted in little more than a short term sway 1n this highway cruiser lust. But preferences are

slowly changing and minimum fuel economy standards are already on the books for implementation starting in

1978. So even if public demand does not swing toward smaller cars fast enough, the federal government will

have us all driving lighter machinery when the 27.5 miles per gallon rgulations take effect In 1985. It seems

that size reduction of the automobile has just begun.

Engine aids:

Probably one half of the cars on the road today waste fuel needlessly simply because they are not properly

tuned. With corrected timing and minor carburetion adjustment, these vehicles could be made to consume ten to

fifteen percent less fuel.

Economy carburetors, while not a complete answer in themselves, can boost mileage. The Dresserator, Ken-

dig, and Tyce Fish carburetors are among the many currently produced. The main function of these carburetors

is to increase fuel economy, usually at the expense of emissions.

Replacement of the stock belt-driven fan with an automatic electric fan results in a slight reduction in

fuel consumption. The main advantage of this substitution is faster warm-ups, which means less fuel consumed,less engine wear, and reduced exhaust emissions. The exchange of a stock paper air cleaner by an oil impregnated foam air filter aids mileage by providing for more efficient air intake. Even whet, the foam element is

heavily laden with dirt. It passes more air to the carburetor and therefore there is no progressive reduction

in fuel economy as dirt builds up. This Is not true of the stock paper filter which causes increased fuelconsumption as the paper becomes clogged.

Synthetic oil can increase mileage due to its low friction coefficient. Mobil 1, the most heavily marketed synthetic oil boasts up to ten extra miles per tankful. Synthetic oil has the added advantage of dura-

blllty. Engineers claim It to be useful for up to fifteen thousand miles. The drawbacks are cost (approxi-

lately $3.50 per can) and the complications of using It In a car under factory warranty which may require morefrequent oil changes.

An Interesting fuel saving device called EASS (Engine Automatic Stop and Start System) developed by ToyotaMotors is an Innovative way to save gasoline In traffic. The concept Is straightforward and simple. In any

nodern, big, and busy city, a car spends a lot of time standing still, waiting for traffic lights to change,

or just stuck 1n a jam. According to Toyota, on a twenty two mile jaunt through Tokyo, its test car spent

68.4 minutes stationary out of the 160 minutes required for the trip. This 1s admittedly not very efficient;

but such Is the every day pace in the biggest city 1n the world. Toyota's rationale was basic; why not stop

the engine, which operates inefficiently at idle, when the car is standing still, and restart it when traffic

moves? It would obviously save fuel as well as reduce pollution and It could be done automatically with the

aid of electronics. EASS accomplishes this. W111 we see it here? I certainly hope so. Write to Toyota Motorsand tell them what you think.

Fewer comfort auxiliaries:

There are two primary categories of power consuming devices attached to the engine in current cars. The

first of these Includes auxiliaries such as the oil pump, the fuel pump, the distributor, which are all neces

sary for the functioning of the engine. These Items have fairly low, and not easily reduced, power consump

tion. Little scope for Improvement is available here.

The second category Includes accessories which are driven by the engine for the benefit of the passengers.

The two main Items are the air-conditioner and the power steering pump.

Power steering became necessary to allow a satisfactory combination of steering effort and good maneuver

ability as cars became bigger and heavier. My suggestion 1s to get a small car light enough so that power

steering is not a necessity.

Air conditioning requires the most power of all accessories and is considered a necessity in many parts of

the country. Air conditioning, operated at maximum output, will increase full-sized car fuel consumption by

approximately 10 per cent, and at moderate output, by six per cent. The initial cool-down requires the great

est amount of power, at least twice the power needed to maintain comfort. While it does get hot in Contra Costa,

Santa Clara, Napa, and Sonoma counties, only during a few months of the year would air conditioners be helpful.

With this 1n mind, 1t Is my opinion that air conditioning is not really necessary 1n the Bay Area. In the in

terests of energy conservation, when one buys a car, one should purchase a car with as few power draining

accessories as possible and avoid air conditioning.

Aerodynamic aids:

Aerodynamic drag is a function of velocity and has a more important effect on highway driving than on city

driving. Its magnitude 1s proportional to both the frontal area and the drag coefficient of the vehicle. Reduc

tion 1n the drag coefficient will lead to proportional increases in mileage. Careful design of rain gutters

and mirrors along with the use of spoilers and air dams to promote a smoother air flow over the vehicle, can

lead to significant reductions in the drag coefficient. Of course, 1t should be noted that different cars re

spond differently to aerodynamic aids due to their inherent shape and size. As an example, take the use of the

front spoiler. The front spoiler lowers drag by blocking air flow from under the car. At first tnought,106

-

-

I

-

blocking any air path might seem to Increase drag, but flow between the car's rough underside and the static

road surface is so turbulent and energy consuming that 1t is best avoided. A front spoiler forces the air

up and over the top and side of the car, rather than letting 1t travel underneath the car.

Fuel mileage Increases can be encouraging when simple aerodynamic aids are used. A car magazine (Car and

Driver) project team using aluminum sheeting and tlnsnins, along with mounting hardware, devised a simple

front-rear spoiler design that amounted to a fifteen per cent increase in miles per gallon on a stock 1974

Ford Pinto as a base vehicle.

If we utilize design Innovations, It Is evident that the savings from Improvement of present day internal

combustion engines and improvements in structural configuration offer significant but limited increases in

fuel economy. With federal government minimum fuel economy standards due in 1985 (requiring a fleet average

of 27.5 miles per gallon) the trend seems to be towards lighter, more fuel efficient autos. In the meantime,

talk to your mechanic about installing aerodynamic aids, eliminating some comfort auxiliaries, or just getting

a good tune-up to save energy.

Alternative vehicles:

Among the substitutes to the fuel Inefficient gasoline combustion automobile are three wheel autos, el«c-

trlc autos, and dlesels. Let us briefly examine each, noting their particular vices and virtues.

Three wheel autos have been called everything from the commutor's salvation to a rolling death trap. De

signed and engineered correctly, three wheelers can approach a motorcycle's economy (approximately 50 miles

per gallon) and have the added benefit of a full enclosure for up to two passengers. As a short distance

coraaute car, the three wheeler is ideal. It Is small, highly maneuverable, and easy on fuel. For longer

trips, Its cramped quarters, bouncy ride, and high noise factor detract from its potential as an Intercity

mode of transportation.

Electric autos Initially sound great. They are quiet, approximate a conventional auto's comfort, and

are nonpolluting. But they are also heavy (try lifting your car's battery), have limited range (longevity of

the batteries is the problem), and they could place an additional burden on electrical power generating plants

1f used in large numbers. The additional tax on the power generating plants could well cancel out the non-

polluting virtures of the electric auto since the extra output could cause additional pollution at the power

plant. Therefore, until a lightweight, powerful battery can be developed along with a nonpolluting economical

power generating method (solar?), the electrical auto does not seem to be the answer to our mobility needs.

Of all the alternatives, the dlesel engine seems to be the best. The diesel 1s extremely durable, has

the advantage of less expensive fuel, and also happens to be the favorite alternative of the Environmental

Protection Agency. The dlesel has the high regard with the EPA largely because it looks so impressive when

evaluated with gasoline engine evaluating techniques. But herein lies a fallacy.

Aldehydes are the ingredients of the diesel exhaust that smell so bad. Even though they are perceptibly

more noxious than the hydrocarbons present in conventional engine exhaust, the EPA weighs them in without

penalty since there are no present limits on aldehyde emission. The EPA pays heed only to grams per mile of

pollutant emitted, with no penalties for the diesel's odor.

The diesel's black smoke also escapes the EPA's concern. It is made up of particulates, small chunks of

pure carbon produced during certain phases of the diesel's combustion process. Particulates are very much a

pollutant, although they tend to be inconsequential in spark ignition engine exhaust. For this reason, no107

limits on particulate emissions are in existance.

So, despite the fact that the diesel is regarded highly by the EPA, it falls short of being the magicsolution to our tranportatlon needs due to its pollution problems, noise factor, and fuel availability prob-lems.

Fuel economy and use characteristics:

The energy efficiency of a transportation mode may be improved 1f the load factor (proportion of potentialfull load) per trip Is Increased, thereby decreasing the nurt,er of individual trips and cutting down on thevehicle miles traveled. The present average for all autos commuting to and from big cities In this country isapproximately 116 persons per car. If occupancy could be increased to 2people per car, there would be a twenty per cent reduction 1n rush-hour traffic and an accompanying savings In energy and pollution.

IlmosHn^mfnlon Syee%al0ne,fhe aute™b1le occupancy were Increased to 2persons/caralmost 600 million gallons of gasoline would be saved per year. And, therefore connectionand parking problems would be alleviated substantially."^ n ' inererore. congestion

Load factor in private automobiles may be Increased by carpoolIng. hitchhiking, or sharing the use of anauto among two or more families having obvious implementation problems. Carpoollng requires some effort butthe results are worthwhile.

In the nine county Bay Area there is a free carpoollng service provided by the California State Departmentof Transportation. The number to call is 861-P00L. The potential carpooler is asked a few questions such asthe time, destination, and origin of the commute. The answers are fed Into acomputer which matches the personwith others whose responses are similar, thus forming the nucleus of a possible carpool. A11st of names andphone numbers are then sent to each person. The set-up of the carpool is left to the individuals involved.

30 40

PERCENTAGE OF MILEAGE

50 60 70 BO

12% OVER 15 MILES

1 4% 10-15 MILES

20% 5-10 MILES

1 0% 4-5 MILES

11% 3-4 MILES

1 1 % 2-3 MILES

11% 1-2 MILES

2Eh-j

fZ

§<UJIEO

UJOz

I5

11% 0-1 MILE

90

F19ure 1- Percentage of Miles per Gallon (mileage) achieved given distance traveled.Each bar represents t of trips of given distance. (Road Test, April 1976 p 68)

108

100

r-

r

Personal driving habits can have a large effect on fuel economy. Although the Internal combustion

engine is capable of converting about thirty per cent of the energy available In gasoline to the motion of

the car under ideal conditions, in practice we realize only eight to fifteen per cent according to EPA. This

1s because so much of our driving Is at partial load operation and so much of 1t occurs when the engine has

not reached its proper operating temperature. A cold engine will use fuel at about twice the rate of a prop

erly warmed one. This is especially significant when you consider that over half of all trips made in this

country are five miles or less. These short trips hurt mileage and waste energy. On a trip of less than one

mile, you are likely to get only one half of your normal mileage. Since the choke 1s on, you may be running

on an average air/fuel ratio of five to one Instead of fifteen to one. That is one reason most pollution

occurs during cold starts. The chart on the preceding page (figure 1) shows graphically the relation between

distance traveled and percentage of mileage achieved. Trips between one and two miles may average 64% of

normal miles per gallon; between two and three, 73%. By now your choke should be off and your engine warming,

but you are still far from best operating temperature. In your three to four mile trip, you might average

79% and in your four to five mile trip, 84%. If your driving patterns are average, more than half your trips

are shorter than this.

Other driving habits which save fuel are: keeping speeds low, avoiding unnecessary rapid acceleration,

preparing for stops by slowing ahead of time, and driving 1n the highest gear consistent with smooth engine

operation.

High speeds hurt mileage. Fuel economy drops quickly above fifty or sixty miles per hour for most auto

mobiles. As you drive, an Increase 1n pressure at the front of the car and at the windshield tends to hold

the car back. The pressure is obvious when you hold your open hand out of the window at highway speed. For

a given car, wind resistance at sixty miles per hour will be four times that at thirty miles per hour. It

would be wise to keep speed low and observe the speed limits.

Rapid acceleration and frequent braking also hurt mileage. The more rapidly you accelerate to speed,

the higher your average speed over a given distance which means that more fuel is required than If accelera

tion were gradual. When you accelerate rapidly, other things happen as well. The rate at which energy is

lost to friction within the engine increases with increasing revolutions per minute, and the combustion

efficiency drops off in the higher revolution ranges as well. Stand behind a car that accelerates away from

you at full throttle and you will smell the unburned fuel vapor being blown out of the tail pipe. A three

thousand pound car will be getting only two miles per gallon during a full throttle acceleration.

By the same token, prepare for stopping ahead of time. This will not only mean less wear and tear on

the car but will also save fuel by coasting rather than rushing to a stop.

These personal driving tips, while not an answer in themselves, will certainly help ease the energy

crisis. Voluntary conservation may be the only way we have to avoid formal and perhaps drastic constraints

on car design and use. Reducing the amount of petroleum we consume now may mean that in the future we may

continue to use the private automobile.

Mass tranportation:

In looking at public transportation as an alternative to the private car, we should consider the history

of transportation. Throughout this history, speed has been the key to success in attracting passengers 1n

spite of the discomfort of high speed transport In some cases. When the horse replaced walking 1t was not109

because the horse was more comfortable; the horse was faster. The early railroad trains were not as comfortableas the canal boats but they were much faster. The early automobiles were not as comfortable as the railroadsbut cars were much faster for some trips and one could go whenever one pleased. Speed and convenience seem tobe the keys to success. In today's society, for a transportation system to compete successfully, it must notonly be fast and convenient but also energy efficient. The most likely system is some form of train, operatedon a grade-separated right of way. Part of the nine county Bay Area has such a system-BART.

About one hundred years ago, San Francisco fostered the cable car. On September 11, 1972. San FranciscoBay ARea Rapid Transit (BART) set another milestone in public transportation and started operating the firstall new rapid transit system In the United States in over sixty years. The total BART right of way is seventy-five miles, about equally divided between subway, ground level, and aerial tracks. BART features such Innovations as wider tracks for stability, resilient material under the rail for noise reduction, and amodern engineering feat in the completion of the underwater double tube. The cars, constructed by Rohr. have large windows to give an airy feeling, foam padded seats with vinyl and cloth coverings for comfort, and wall to wallcarpeting. BART has tried hard to lure people out of their private cars. Sixteen different architecturalfirms and eight landscaping firms were employed to design the stations and gardens. Fifteen of the thirty-far stations commissioned special art work. The results are Impressive; walls are decorated with relief carvings, aosalcs, and super graphic colors. The floors and stairways are imitation marble or other attractivematerials.

Despite these good points, the system has turned out to be a nightmare. It overran its constructionbudget, experienced managerial problems, and after almost five years, has yet to perform up to its expectations.The system Is unreliable as far as keeping to its time schedules. In the design of the system, the engineerswere so myopic In trying to obtain an average station-to-station speed of fifty-five miles per hour that theyforgot everything else and put the stations too far apart. Station location 1s another problem. BART waswas especially designed with downtown workers in mind and not the poor who need it the most. People who liveout 1n the suburbs of Orinda. Lafayette, and Walnut Creek, and who are better served by BART than most of theSan Francisco and Oakland residents hardly need a subsidy from poor tax payers in order to receive better service to downtown areas. BART seems to be a commuter's express when what we need 1s an urban workhorse.

Let us now look at a comparison In energy efficiency between two Bay Area mass transit modes, the bus andBART, and the private auto. Electric pick up vehicles such as BART tend to require less energy than fuel combustion vehicles for two reasons. First, the energy conversion factor of an electric power plant to the vehicledrive 1s high (approximately 25-30%), whereas fuel combustion vehicles tend to have lower effic1enc1es(approx1-mately 8-15%). Second, the fuel combustion vehicle must carry with it a heavy engine which requires energy tomove 1t.

To facilitate comparison between BART, bus, and the private auto, we need to establish a single system ofenergy units. In this case, we have two sources of energy, electricity for BART and petroleum products for thebus and the private auto. We will consider the gasoline or oil energy In British Thermal Units (BTU) and compare this with the energy Into the pwer plants which provide the energy to operate BART. This comparison doesnot take Into account the energy required to refine, prepare, or transport fuels for use directly in vehicles

34or for use in power plants because this information is difficult to obtain. To that degree, it 1s an inaccurate comparison.

For internal combustion engines we assume a conversion factor of 136,000 BTU's per gallon of either gaso

line or dlesel oil. This is an average figure. Fuels will vary slightly depending primarily on the processing

form.

For BART, we assume a heat rate of 11.700 BTU's per kilowatt hour. This corresponds to an average thermalpower plant efficiency of thirty percent and an average transmission efficiency of ninety one percent. Thecomparison figures which follow assume a twenty five percent load factor and are measured in BTU's per passen-

34

Weight Seats BTU/PM

2,000 lbs. 4 4,748

4,000 lbs. 5 7,600

ger mile.—

Vehicle

_,

Gas Auto (small)

iGas Auto (large)

rBART

Fixed Route Bus

rExpress Bus

58,000 lbs. 72 3,248

20,000 lbs. 50 3,020

20,000 lbs. 50 2,368

According to this data, in both Fixed Route (scheduled) and Express modes, the bus is more energy efficient

than either BART or the private automobile. Data on load factor and distance between stops also indicate that

the bus is more efficient than BART having lower energy cost per mile figures. It appears that 1n the face

of a genufne energy crisis, at least 1n the short run, maximum utilization of buses would seem to be a better

alternative than BART.

j-« The following charts are recommendations on regional energy reduction for areas such as the nine county

Bay Area. The ideas presented are proposals which I feel are applicable and easy to implement.

The proposals mentioned are those which I feel are most feasible in the nine county Bay Area. Many are

now in practice and, In light of our prosent energy dilemma, many more may be utilized.

An encouraging action taken by President Carter is his set of energy proposals. Among the suggestions

are ways to persuade Americans to purchase lighter, more fuel efficient automobiles. According to the plan,

anyone buying a small, efficient car from May 1, 1977, will receive a rebate. Under the same plan, purchasers

of gas-guzzlers would be penalized by an additional tax proportional to what kind of mileage the car achieved.

It is disappointing that we must either be rewarded or penalized to be made to do something which is for

the benefit of all. But until Americans are able to comprehend the serious nature of our energy problem, such

means appear to be the only way to accomplish conservation in transportation energy.

Ill

Action Group Action RegionalEnergyReduction

(X?

Travel

TineSafety Air

Pollution

1) Measures toImprove flow ofhigh occupancyvehicles

Reserved freewayBus or Bus/carpoollanes and ranps

0-2.0 Decrease Improve Decrease

2) Measures to Improved siqnalimprove total systemsvehicular traffic flow

One-way sts. noon-st. parking

Eliminate unneces-Trafflc controldevices

Driver advisorysystem

Staggered wrk. hrs.

1.0-4.0

1.0-4.0

0-2.0

0-0.5

0

Decrease

Decrease

Decrease

Decrease

Decrease

Improve

Improve

Improve

Improve

Improve

Decrease

Decrease

Decrease-

Decrease

Decrease

3) Measures toIncrease car and vanoccupancy

Carpool Matchingprograms

Carpool incentives

3.0-6.(J

4.0-6.0

No effect

.*lo effect

No effect

No effect

Decrease

Decrease

4) Measures toIncrease mass transitpatronage

Service improvement 1.0-3.0

Fare reductions 4.0-6.0

Park/ride with express 0.5-2.5bus service

Decrease

No effect

Decrease

Improve

No effect

Improve

Decrease

Decrease

Decrease

5) Measures toencourage walk andbicycle modes

Pedestrian malls

Bikeway system

Bike storage fadl.

0.5-2.5

0.5-2.0

0-1. (J

0.5-2.5

0-3.0

Decrease

Decrease

No effect

Increase

Increase

Improve

Improve

Improve

Decrease

Decrease

Decrease

Auto-free or traffic1imited zones

Limiting hrs. orlocation of travel

6) Measures torestrict traffic Improve

Improve

Decrease

Decrease

7) Transportationpricing measures

Bridges and hiwaytolls

Increased parkingcosts

Fuel tax

Mileage tax

Vehicle relatedtees (wt., ni.p.g.)

1.0-5.0

O.b-3.0

2.0-6.0

2.0-6.0

2.(1-10.f)

No effect

Mo effect

No effect

No effect

No effect

No effect

No effect

No effect

No effect

No effect

Decrease

Decrease

Decrease

Decrease

Decrease

3) Measures toreduce the need totravel

Four day wrkwk

Zoning*

Communicationssubstitutes

1.0-6.0

1.0-10.0

0-1.0

No effect

No effect

Ho effect

No effect

No effect

No effect

Decrease

Decrease

Land use can be planned so that origins and destinations(i.e., Home and places of work) are in closer proximity

Figure 2. Energy Reduction Ideas in Transportation.59 112

•

-

r

r

r

•

References Cited

1. ABT Associates, Inc., 1975, Cost-effective methods to reduce the heating and coolingenergy requirements of existing single-family residences: Washington, D.C., Dept.of Commerce, Office of Policy Development and Research.

2. Adams, Anthony, 1975, Your energy-efficient house; building and remodeling ideas:Charlotte, Vt., Garden Way Pub., 118 pp.

3. Ahem, et al., 1975, Energy alternatives for California: Paths to the future: SantaMonica, Ca., Rand.

4. Association of Bay Area Governments, ig70, Regional Plan 1970: 1990- S.F. Bay Region:Berkeley, Ca.

5. Barrett, Larry, May l'J77, PG&E Statistician, oral communication.

6. Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, 1976, Emissions inventory summary report:San Francisco, Ca.

7. Calif. Dept. of Housing & Comm. Development, Div. of Codes and Standards, 1976,Energy design manual for residential buildings: California.

8. Calif. Energy Resources Conservation & Development Comm., 1975, Energy shortage contingency plan: Sacramento, Ca., Vol. 2.

9. ___^ , 1975, Order adopting regulations of the State Energy Resources Conser-vatlon and Development Comm.: Sacramento, Ca.

10. , 1976, Quarterly fuel and energy summary; Vol. 2, 1st &2nd quarter of1976: Sacramento, Ca., 20 pp.

U. » 1976, Staff report on appliance efficiency program: Sacramento, Ca.

12. , 1976, Summary of recommendations: State energy shortage contingencyplan: Sacramento, Ca., 38 pp.

13- , 1977, Biennial report: Calif, energy trends and choices: Vol. 3,Opportunities for energy conservation: Sacramento, Ca., 176 pp.

M. , Jan. 1977, Research and development program: Sacramento, Ca.

15. Calif. Public Utilities Comm., 1976, Analysis of 1976 conservation programs of PacificGas & Electric Co.: Sacramento, Ca.

16. . 1976, Report on the quantitative measurement of Pacific Gas & ElectricCo.: Sacramento, Ca.

17. Calif. State Solid Waste Management Board, 1977, Bay area solid waste management project -Phase 1.

18. Chase, May 1977, Building Manager - Transamerica Building, oral communication.

.19. Citizens Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality, 1975, Energy in solid waste-Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 39 pp.

20. Clark, Marshall, February 1977, California State Energy Commission - Conservation Dept.,oral communication.

21. Clausen, Muriel C, 1960, A general survey of lighting: Quantity lighting, qualitylighting.

22. CUne, Alan, March 27, 1977, PG&E rates keyed to time-of-use: San Francisco Exam'ner.p.8.

23. Contra Costa County Planning Dept., 1976, Energy use and conservation in Contra CostaCounty, California.

24. Darnay, A. and Franklin, W.E., 1969, The role of packaging in solid waste management1966 to 1976: Rockvllle, Md., U.S. Government Printing Office, 205 pp.

25. Electric and Gas Industries Assn., Answers to questions about gas range pilotless ignition.

26. Energy Conservation Research, 1974, The energy challenge: What we can do: Malvern, Pa.

27. Environment Information Center, 1976, The energy index '76: New York, N.Y., EnvironmentInformation Center, Inc.

28. Fisher, John Crocker, 1974, Energy crises 1n perspective: New York, N.Y., Wlley-lnter-sdence Publication.

29. Gilliam, Harold, A rich new source of U.S. energy, save it: San Francisco, CA.,S.F. Sunday Examiner and Chronicle. jjj

33' "*Stf&J,S^5fj7»."" "»««»*<« ""I-*-. ».C.. World Watch

M- ""WW?: ^.^p^of'< "•"*" Wem' s'"" "•"• «••• <•»'•35' T^f•£B!"£S3SSSJftt?''f,n" "*"—>°- •*-36. Kerrer. March 1977. PG&E Conservation Dept., oral communication.

37- ^.wia^^ wwsars pp\LawrenceBerke,e* Labor-M- *u!ftftS!li,Sj!!, of ™m ,i9ht1n9 for the ,nte11l9ent la'-39- *Mx#t ttSiS avE1* i975-Eneray conservation «- **-4°' L°Wireq1siaFtion- SttifH* Disposing of non-«turnables agudle to minimum depositlegislation. Stanford, Ca., Stanford Environmental Law Society, 132 pp.41. Merle, Tom, April 1977, Bay Area Council, oral communication.

42. Morrison, Rick, 1977, Engineer-Hyatt, oral communication.

"• "•Bi.'srssjas ss& sssmg" n'"^^"^ •««•*.45. Mr. Nowell, May 1977, Bay Area Refrigeration, oral communication.

46. Oakland Insulation Contractors, May 1977, oral communication.

47. Pacific Gas and Electric Co.. Home Economics Dept.. The conservation generation.

48' —the P.,hHr liHmil.' I976' PlaK f?r 1977 energy conservation activities report forthe PubTicUtllitles Comm. of the State of Calif.: San Francisco. CA.

49. Road and Track. October 1974, Japanese innovations: New York, H.Y., CBS Publications.50. Roberts. F.W.. May 1977. Building Manager - Bank of America Center, oral communication.51. Smith, Bernie, 1972, Secrets of a successful carpool: Shell 011 Co.

53. «^D^B#'j5J^1^5pWeJ energy consumption in the U.S, Washing-54. SteadMli^Phillp, 1975, Energy, environment and building: New York, N.Y., Cambridge

55. Thomasson, William. May 1977. PG&E - Commercial and Industrial Energy Conservation Oeptoral communication. y "

56. U.S Dept. of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. 1972. 1970 Census of Housing, Vol 1Housing characteristics for states, cities, and counties. Part 6, California! Ca. 624 pp.

57 • . Bureau of the Census, 1967, Census of Manufacturers, Washington. O.C.58. U.S Dept of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research

™«ii VI? k?^assessment of residential energy conservation innovations, finalreport: Columbia, Md., Hittman Associates, Inc.

114

r

r

59. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 1975, Energy primer selected transportation topics:U.S. Dept. of Transportation Technology Sharing Program.

60. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973a, Environmental impacts of packaging:Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 111 pp.

61. , 1973b, First report to Congress, Resource recovery and sourcereduction: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 125 pp.

62. , 1974a, Second report to Congress, Resource recovery and sourcereduction: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 112 pp.

63. , 1974b, Resource and environmental profile analysis of 9 beveragecontainer alternatives: Washington, D.C., u.S. Government Printing Office, 103 pp.

64. Williams, Terry, May 1977, Engineer - Hyatt Regency Hotel, oral communication.

115

SUPPLEMENTAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

3' =wBHriwA1&ir!BtSSTWtfwS£iCT'- KStS^ai."75' C°nSer,,"!' ™rw: Bs,tl""-«- **« •**•

'' ".™„Zica";^.f,ibr"*ry ,9"' CERC0C «"W««1 Depart, „P„

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. March 31 107K d™., ,

"roras^

10- BBtASMw BaaPSlsa»«lr-,"• en^rgTreSrtSfpS6- '973' «*»•«• °' »'« California

'2" ?SnicaFt1oTy '977> PG?'E PUbMC Inf0rBat,0n "^rt^rt, oral'3' KJSmS!!*? Federa1 P0wer Comm^sion, 1974, Staff report on

116