All of the topics under discussion at this symposium are directly related to public welfare and the quality of life. To be implemented, many of the ideas will require large amounts of public funding. It is appropriate therefore that those elected and entrusted by the public with the task of safeguarding the public's welfare and disbursing public funds wisely, be active participants at this symposium. I congratulate the organizing committee on their foresight and am sure that much lasting good will come from the legislator-technologist interaction. It is a privilege for me to be invited to present a legislator's view of the value of this cooperation. I should say at the outset that, although I plan to talk primarily about sub-surface space, as a legislator, I am interested in all technologies and all ideas that have the potential of improving public well-being. Therefore, many of my remarks will be general in application. My main objective here is to urge communication between technologists and government officials. Unless political forces join with technical experts, public policy cannot be advanced. You should know that legislators are generalists in most subjects, expert in none, and knowledgeable in only a few. If those in government do not understand the problems and potential solutions, there is no way their governing can lead to real progress. Your expertise is needed, and can have a tremendous effect when interwoven with the power of policymakers. In September of 1977, I had the privilege along with five colleagues from the Minnesota Legislature to attend Rockstore 77 here in Stockholm in this very pavilion. I was impressed that there were over 1000 technical experts from 50 different countries that had gathered for a week to discuss, among other subjects, underground disposal of radioactive waste, underground oil and gas storage and, the energy and conservation implications of underground space use. What was obvious and disturbing to the six of us was that we, from just one of the 50 states of the United States, were the only elected officials who took the time to come and hear what the technocrats had to offer. Not one of us is an engineer or has anything closely resembling a degree in engineering. We were all members of a legislative commission that oversees Minnesota's natural resources and dispenses funds to upgrade and enhance the same. Even as lay persons and elected officials, we were interested in the interaction between technology and the policymakers of government. It is imperative for those of us who help set policy in a state or in a country and who hold the power of the purse, to interact with technical experts. This interaction must occur before the pol icy is made, and continue throughout the several forms that policy must adopt before final legislative action occurs. I cannot pretend to be intimately familiar with legislative and policy-making procedures in other countries, but I do believe that there are sufficient similarities in all legislator-technologist exchange situations to make it useful to offer some general observations. The world desperately needs workable technological solutions quickly - the needs differ in the developed and in the developing countries, but they are there. The technology to solve the problem is in most cases, also there. Why is it not applied?

This paper discusses the current activity ann, in particular, the current research efforts in the area of earth sheltered building design, construction, and acceptance in the U.S. INTRODUCTION Interest in the use of earth sheltered buildings has expanded greatly in the past 6 years, and particularly in the last 2 years. Prior to 1973, there were only a few isolated earth sheltered houses and scattered commercial and institutional examples of underground buildings in the United States. These were mostly built for design aesthetics or environmental reasons. Since then the number of earth sheltered buildings and houses being built has increased very rapidly. Since earth sheltering is not yet a term that is universally understood, it would perhaps be well to further define the concept before embarking on a discussion of what research is currently underway in the field. In broad terms, earth sheltering uses the earth as a barrier and a moderator. The earth Moderates temperature extremes in the air, and moderates surface vibrations and airborne noise. It acts as a barrier to storm and wind effects, ultraviolet degradation, and an undesirable visual environment. It has a large thermal mass that can work well with an intermittent energy supply such as solar energy. The earth is also a natural element which supports vegetation and, hence, the other life processes on which we ultimately depend. Using the earth to shelter a house or building, then, is a means of providing a natural barrier to many undesirable climatic and man-made features of a particular area. The impact of the building on the surrounding environment will also be lessened, allowing more of the land's surface to remain in a natural state. Furthermore, and of particular importance at the present time, earth sheltering serves as a massive means of decreasing the dependence of the building on artificial methods of climate control derived from fossil fuel energy. Naturally, there are also some disadvantages to earth sheltered structures. These relate primarily to the heavier and stronger structure required, tile need for high quality waterproofing and insulation to combat exposure to ground moisture, and the need for a higher level of design and supervision in small scale construction. Although earth sheltered designs are not limited to any fixed definitions, it will perhaps be helpful to explain two of the basic layouts that are typical of earth sheltered construction. A typical design that is very appropriate for colder climates is the elevational design in which windows and openings are grouped on one side of the structure, with the remaining three sides and roof earth-covered. When the windows do face south, a maximum amount of passive solar heating can be achieved to combine with the low energy requirements of the structure. A courtyard or atrium design is quite common and is a very appropriate design for a flat site or a warm climate. The courtyard does not have to be totally enclosed. Using a U-shaped courtyard allows an easier transition and visual connection to the surrounding ground.

The paper discusses the energy-saving potential of earth-sheltered buildings and the U.S. Department of Energy's research, development and demonstration activities and plans regarding their commercialization. INTRODUCTION The subject of my presentation--earth-sheltered buildings--involves a happy intersection of a problem and a potential. The problem is well recognized--the scarcity of energy and its rising price. The problem requires that we undertake effective energy conservation programs. In the United States, fully 37 percent of the nation's energy is used in the residential and commercial building sector. This underscores the importance of U.S. building energy conservation programs. The potential is not so broadly recognized. It is the potential of earth-sheltered designs to reduce by up to 30 to 60 percent or more the energy required for the heating and cooling of buildings. The U.S. Department of Energy regards earth-sheltered buildings as the promising alternative it is considering in its innovative structures program. The Department has monitored earth-sheltered building trends, supported research, identified barriers to commercialization, disseminated information, and is applying earth-sheltered designs to one of its own new buildings. HISTORY The term, earth-sheltered buildings, has not been captured by a formal definition. A good working definition applies the term to buildings with earth protection for 50 percent or more of the area of their roofs and exterior walls. Few of the buildings are entirely underground. but all use the earth to improve their energy performance. The current interest in earth-sheltered buildings is simply the latest chapter in man's continuing struggle to adapt to his environment. The first chapter was the caves inhabited at the dawn of human history. A more elegant version are the homes found in Ajanta, India, that date back to the 5th and 6th Centuries, A.D. A few centuries later, refugees from a crumbling Roman Empire, carved houses into soft, cone-shaped rocks in Cappadocia, Turkey. The Tunisian atrium houses through the century have provided protection from that area's extreme heat. The sod houses of the pioneers of the American prairie were another practical application of earth-sheltered design to cope with severe weather conditions where other building materials were not easily available. A rebirth of interest in earth-sheltered buildings has occurred in the United States during the past two decades. It has been nurtured by various themes. In the early phase, fear of atomic war led to habitable fallout shelters. In the later 1960's and 1970's, the environmental movement led architects to create earth-sheltered designs that were in harmony with the natural environment. The energy-saving benefits of earth-sheltered designs have fanned the rapidly spreading interest in the last half of the 1970's. As director of the Minnesota Energy Agency from 1975 to 1979 when I joined the U.S. Department of Energy, I participated in Minnesota's leadership in the support of earth-sheltered buildings. In the past few years, a state-sponsored guidebook, "Energy Sheltered Housing Design," (Underground Space Center, 1978) has become a best seller, selling more than 100,000 copies. A map of earthsheltered buildings is speckled with activity in all parts of the country with concentrations in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Oklahoma (Vadnais, 1980).