Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
16987803
label
Energy (6)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
16987803
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Energy (6)
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
Federal Energy Administration. (06/27/1974 - 10/01/1977)
Energy Research and Development Administration. (01/19/1975 - 10/01/1977)
U.S. Congress. (1789 - )
Synthetic fuels
Nuclear energy
Presidential messages
Energy policy
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
16987803
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1977-01-01
month
1
year
1977
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-08-01
month
8
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
7f1508235167c957
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 13, folder "Energy (6)" of the James M. Cannon
Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 13 of the James M. Cannon Files
,
at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
I
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Kris:
HOLD for Cheney's comments on the
CEQ/ERDA memo.
C
d
9/16/76
GERRAL & FORD LIBRARY
Pending
CLEARANCE SHEET
DATE: 9/9/76
JMC ACTION
Required by:
ASAP
STAFF RESPONSIBILITY Schleede
SUBJECT: CEQ Report on Energy R&D
RECEIVED FROM:
DATE RECEIVED:
STAFF COMMENTS:
Comments on George Humphreys memo
of 9/7/76 to Art Quern, same subject
QUERN /MOORE RECOMMENDATION:
Schleede and Humphup have
APPROVE
strong feelings -- on opposite
REVIEW & COMMENT
sids I think you should meet
DISCUSS
their case, and decide on counse of action.
with them, - let them make
CANNON ACTION:
DATE:
Material Has Been:
Signed and forwarded
Changed and signed
Returned per conversation
Noted
JIM CANNON
Comment:
REQUEST
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 8, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
GLENN SCHLEEDE
SUBJECT:
CEO Report on Energy R&D
I have not reviewed the latest draft in detail but:
A cursory review indicates that it has all the
defects on merits that were identified on page 2
of my August 24, 1976 memo to you (copy attached).
OMB staff indicate that it does not address the
problems they identified and which Jim Mitchell
may have brought to Chairman Peterson's attention.
Beyond the substance and merits, I disagree with George
FORD LIBRARY
Humphrey's conclusion that we shouldn't delay CEQ's
release of the report because I believe his argument
concerning "heavy handedness" is more than offset by
the following:
Allowing CEQ to proceed would be a poor precedent
in that the report:
- Is of poor quality.
- Puts an Executive Office Agency on record against
Administration position.
Also, it would "reward" CEQ for taking an approach
with a proposed public report that is pretty irrespon-
sible. I find it hard to believe that the CEQ staff
didn't know they were challenging a previous position
since they had opportunity to participate in discussions
leading to the President's Budget decisions and the
review of ERDA's 76-1. The responsible approach would
have been to:
- Check the report in draft with OMB or us before it
was given to ERDA and leaked; or
- Asked for reconsideration of the Administration
position -- to be settled by decision paper.
The basic points of disagreement are essentially the
- 2 -
same ones that were at issue in the dispute
with ERDA over its "R&D Plan. " With your instructions
and guidance, we insisted that ERDA get in line
with Administration position reflected in the
President's budget and in his philosophy on Government
VS. private sector role. (Incidentially, the ERDA
report had also leaked and there were ERDA staff
charges of heavy-handedness.) Why should we treat
CEQ differently?
Perhaps most important -- There has been a fairly
long standing practice (extending over at least
three administrations and I expect more than that)
of Executive Office clearance for major reports
to the Congress. (As far as I know, that practice
is based on good sense rather than on explicit
provisions of law or the constitution.) Why do
we want to change now?
Repeating an August 24, 1976 observation: The
report is optional - not mandatory. (Reference
Section 11 (d) of the Act. Copy attached.)
If you do decide to go ahead, I would recommend that you
check first with Lynn, O'Neill or Mitchell, because of
the potential for undercutting OMB efforts to get
the report corrected.
CC: Art Quern
FORD LIRRARY & 0728
THE WHITE HOUSE
INFORMATION
WASHINGTON
August 24, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR: JIM CANNON
FROM:
GLENN SCHLEEDE
SUBJECT:
CEQ REPORT EVALUATING ERDA'S ENERGY
R&D PROGRAM
A couple of weeks ago, I sent you a note alerting you
to potential problems with a report CEQ has drafted
on the Council's evaluation of ERDA's energy R&D
program.
CEQ is required by law to evaluate the adequacy
of attention to energy conservation, environmental
protection, and the environmental consequences of
the application of energy technologies. CEQ has
the option of submitting a report to the President,
the Congress, or others as may be necessary. CEQ has
opted to submit a report simultaneously to the Congress and
to the President. A draft of the report has already
leaked to the press (alledgedly by ERDA) and has been
the subject of two Jack Anderson columns.
My last note pointed out that OMB has some serious
problems with the report. I am not yet clear as to
what action Jim Mitchell and Jim Lynn will take.
Steve Jellinek asked me to review the most serious
problem chapter -- energy conservation R&D -- and mark
it up to indicate changes that I believe are necessary.
I started doing this but after completing the first
2-1/2 pages concluded that changes that would be
necessary to bring the report in line with Administration
position are very extensive. I told Steve Jellinek of
this and indicated it would take me some time to do a
mark up on the entire section on energy conservation --
which runs about 40 pages.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
I was advised earlier today by CEQ staff that (a) Chairman
Peterson directed that the draft be sent to GPO to be
put in galley proof form, (b) changes have not yet been
made to solve problems identified, (c) Dr. Peterson is
now considering what action he will take with respect to
objections from OMB and me, and (d) further attempts
by me to mark up the report are probably not worthwhile.
Briefly, my problems with the energy conservation section
are as follows:
1. It calls for a Federal role in energy R&D that is
inconsistent with:
- the President's 1977 budget decisions;
- Administration philosophy on Federal VS. private
role;
- the ERDA energy R&D report which was modified
on this same point and cleared after extensive
discussions.
2. It does not distinguish between Federal and National
(i.e., Federal and non-Federal) responsibilities.
3. It outlines an unrealistic analytic approach to
decisions on energy conservation R&D (which also
contributes to a larger Federal role).
4. It will provide the basis for additional criticism
of the President for not requesting enough money
for energy conservation R&D.
This report may be a conscious attempt to bring about a
change in Administration position on energy conservation
R&D. If this is the case, I think it is the wrong approach.
I think that should be approached through a decision
paper. I would also point out that CEQ has had an
opportunity to participate in the review of ERDA's 1977
budget request and in the review of ERDA's Energy R&D Plan.
OMB staff just informed me that there is another place
in the CEQ draft where the Council's position contradicts
current Administration position; i.e., CEQ apparently
is taking a position that fossil energy R&D should not
proceed as fast as it now is until more work on environmental
impact is done by the environmental people at ERDA. ERDA
and OMB position has been that such work should be done by
the people responsible for the fossil technology development
and not necessarily by the environmental people.
Enclosure - excerpt from law
CC: George Humphreys
GLRALO FORD LIBRARY
(1) une ACC entited An process
against unlawful restraints and monopolies", approved July 2,
calendar days of continuous session of Congress after the date on which
1890 (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), as amended;
such proposed rule or order is transmitted to it unless, between the
(2) the Act entitled "An Act to supplement existing laws
date of transmittal and the end of the thirty day period, either House
against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other pur-
passes a resolution stating in substance that such House does not favor
poses", approved October 15, 1914 (15 U.S.C. 12 ct seq.) as
such n proposed rule or order.
amended;
(ii) the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 11 ct seq.),
WATER RESOURCE EVALUATION
as amended;
(4) sections 73 and 74 of the Act entitled "An Act to reduce
SEc. 13. (a) At the request of the Administrator, the Water 42 USC 5
Resources Council shall undertake assessments of water resource
taxation. to provide revenue for the Government, and for other
purposes", approved August 27, 1894 (15 U.S.C. 8 and 0), as
requirements and water supply availability for any nonnuclear energy
amended; and
technology and any probable combinations of technologies which are
(5) the Act of June 19, 1936, chapter 592 (15 U.S.C. 13, 13a,
the subject of Federal research and development efforts authorized by
13b, and 21a).
this Act, and the commercial development of which could have signifi-
cant impacts on water resources. In the preparation of its assessment,
the Council shall-
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
(1) utilizo to the maximum extent practicable data on water
O.
Sec. 11. (n) The Council on Environmental Quality is authorized
supply and demand available in the files of member agencies of
and directed to carry out n continuing analysis of the effect of appli-
the Council;
cation of nonnuclear energy technologies to evaluate—
(2) collect and compile any additional data it deems necessary
(1) the adequacy of attention to energy conservation methods;
for complete and accurate assessments;
and
(3) give full consideration to the constraints upon availability
(2) the adequacy of attention to environmental protection and
imposed by treaty, compact, court decree, State water laws, and
the environmental consequences of the application of energy
water rights granted pursuant to State and Federal law;
technologies.
(4) assess the effects of development of such technology on
(b) The Council on Environmental Quality, in carrying out the
water quality;
provisions of this section, may employ consultants or contractors and
(5) include estimates of cost associated with production and
may by fund transfer employ the services of other Federal agencies
management of the required water supply, and the cost of disposal
for the conduct of studies and investigations.
of waste water generated by the proposed facility or process;
(c) The Council on Environmental Quality shall hold annual public
(6) assess the environmental, social, and economic impact of
hearings on the conduct of energy research and development and the
any change in use of currently utilized water resource that may
probable environmental consequences of trends in the development
be required by the proposed facility or process; and
and application of energy technologies. The transcript of the hearings
(7) consult with the Council on Environmental Quality.
ty.
shall be published and made available to the public.
(b) For any proposed demonstration project which may involve
(d) The Council on Environmental Quality shall make such reports
a significant impact on water resources, the Administrator shall, as
to the President, the Administrator, and the Congress as it deems
n precondition of Federal assistance to that project, prepare or have
appropriate concerning the conduct of energy research and develop-
prepared an assessment of the availability of adequate water resources.
ment. The President as a part of the annual Environmental Policy
A report on the assessment shall be published in the Federal Register
Publicat
Report required by section 201 of the National Environmental Policy
for public review thirty days prior to the expenditure of Federal
in Feder
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4341) shall set forth the findings of the Council
funds on the demonstration.
Register
on Environmental Quality concerning the probable environmental
(c) For any proposed Federal assistance for commercial applica-
consequences of trends in the development and application of energy
tion of energy technologies pursuant to this Act, the Water Resource
technologies.
Council shall, ns a precondition of such Federal assistance, provide
ACQUISITION OF ESSENTIAL MATERIALS
to the Administrator an assessment of the availability of adequate
GERALD
water resources for such commercial application and an evaluation
11.
Sec. 12. (a) The President may, by rule or order, require the allo-
4.
of the environmental, social, and economic impacts of the dedication of
cation of, or the performance under contracts or orders (other than
water to such uses.
contracts of employment) relating to, supplies of materials and equip-
ment if he finds that-
FORD
(d) Reports of assessments and evaluations prepared by the Coun-
Publicat
cil pursuant to subsections (a) and (c) shall be published in the Fed-
in Feder
(1) such supplies are scarce, critical, and essential to carry out
LIBRARY
eral Register and nt lenst ninety days shall be provided for public
Register
the purposes of this Act; and
review and comment. Comments received shall accompany the reports
(2) such supplies cannot reasonably be obtained without exer-
when they are submitted to the Administrator and shall be available
cising the authority granted by this section.
to the public.
(b) The President shall transmit any rule or order proposed under
(c) The Council shall include a broad survey and analysis of
subsection (a) of this section (bearing an identification number) to
regional and national water resource availability for energy devel-
each House of Congress on the date on which it is proposed. If such
opment in the biennial assessment required by section 102(a) of the
proposed rule or order is transmitted to the Congress such proposed
Water Resources Planning Act (12 U.S.C. 1962a-1(a)).
Schleede
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 7, 1976
MEMORANDUM TO: ART QUERN
and
FROM:
GEORGE W. HUMPHREYS
SUBJECT:
CEQ Report on ERDA
You asked the status of the ongoing discussions.
Schleede is reviewing CEQ's newest draft to see to what
degree his original objections are being met. I do not
believe that Glenn will find the new draft completely
acceptable, based on my understanding of his original
problems.
I do not think that the overriding issue is whether the
report does or does not follow Administration policy.
I believe it to be a mistake for us to hold up the issuance
of this report. Its existence, and substance, is already
known and the charge of "heavy-handed White House pressure"
will create more problems than will the report.
Without arguing the merit of Glenn's objections, I strongly
recommend we do nothing further to delay CEQ's release.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 9, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
ART GLENN JIM QUERN CANNON SCHLEEDE Iftern
SUBJECT:
CEQ REPORT ON ENERGY R&D
I've just learned that OMB has given formal
comments to CEQ on earlier draft of their
report.
A copy of Mitchell's memo is attached.
Attachment.
FORD LIBRARY
091003
August 30, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR RUSS PETERSON, CEQ
FROM:
JIM MITCHELL
Subject:
CEQ report evaluating ERDA's Environmental
and Conservation Programs
As you know, OMB and Domestic Council representatives have
been reviewing the subject CEQ report--working with
Steve Jellinek and others of your staff.
Although considerable OMB staff time has been devoted to
suggested changes in the proposed CEQ report--a number
of which have been incorporated in successive drafts--there
are still fundamental problems that go beyond editing and
which are of a fundamental policy nature, particularly
in the conservation section of the report.
These fundamental policy problems arise because the
report tends, by its tone and emphasis, to call for an
expanded Federal role in conservation R&D that is
inconsistent with:
-- the Administration's policy on Federal vs.
private role;
-- the President's 1977 budget decision which
reflects the above policy; and
-- the ERDA "National Plan" which was
modified to reflect more carefully
the Administration's position, particularl
FORD LIBRARY & GERRLD
on the premise of the private role and
responsibility in conservation and
conservation R&D.
It will, therefore, provide the basis for further criticism
of the President for not requesting more funds for energy
conservation and, particularly will inhibit his ability to
consider the possible deferral of some or all of the
additional funds added by Congress.
2
There is one other section of the report, namely, the
chapter dealing with fossil energy R&D that gives us
a problem. The report takes the position that fossil energy
R&D should be slowed down until more work is done on
environmental impact by the Environmental Division of
ERDA. This suggests that the President's budget is too
high in the fossil energy area and, therefore, undermines
the Administration's program. Our view is that analysis
of the environmental impact of fossil energy technologies
is important, but that such work should be undertaken by
both the Environmental Division of ERDA and the technology
program people involved and, furthermore, that present
deficiencies in dealing with environmental concerns are
not serious enough to warrant slowing down the program.
I want to add my strong support of the views that have
been expressed by my colleagues in OMB and urge that you
undertake an extensive rewrite that will be more in keeping
with a realistic assessment of the Federal responsibility,
particularly in conservation R&D as expressed by this
Administration.
CC:
Official File - SET Division
Mr. Loweth
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
Mr. Taft
Mr. Struthers
Mr. Appleman
SET: HFLoweth:bi 8/30/76
Enewy
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 21, 1976
Dear Mr. Lamb:
Thank you very much for your letter
of August 23 in which you showed deep
insight and understanding of the
energy conservation problem. I have
made certain that your views have
been communicated to appropriate and
GERALD LIBRARY ? FORD
responsible members of the White House
staff for their review.
Again, thank you for writing and
expressing your views.
Sincerely,
James M. Cannon
Assistant to the President
for Domestic Affairs
Mr. John K. Lamb
Lamb and Company, Inc.
1111 Meta Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45237
Reading
him
8/25. that
letter.
August 23, 1976
to Lambad onshed. his
Mr. Cannon:
np;
John Lamb (513) 242-1500, a volunteer representing
the Public Advertising Council would like to see you
for about 10 minutes on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday
morning regarding the Energy Conservation Plan and an
alternate proposal. This meeting would have to do with
both your position and the Energy Conservation Council.
He said he has previously talked to Todd Hullin
and Ken Cole. Also said he would prefer to talk to you
and not someone else.
I WILL TALK TO MR. LAMB
FORD LIBRARY is GERALD
I WILL NOT TALK TO MR. LAMB
REFER TO SCHLEEDE
OTHER
Note
K
August 23, 1976
Mr. James Cannon
Executive Director, Domestic Council
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Cannon:
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Of urgent necessity I must communicate with you as Executive Director of the
Domestic Council and as a member of the Energy Resources Council. It is my
judgment that you will be responsive, as were Ken Cole and Tod Hullin, to a
common sense approach to energy conservation. I respectfully request that
this letter not be bucked to Mr. Zarb or his staff, as it is the FEA Energy Con-
servation Contingency Plan to which I take exception.
It is conceded that in drafting the Plan now on its way to the Energy Resources
Council for review that the options of the FEA were constrained by their direc-
tive under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. This may account
for the plan which has resulted in massive bureaucratic regulation in a most
complicated way, reaching all the way down to telling even the mom and pop
roadside grocery or marginal motel that they may not illuminate their sign,
which is their only means of communicating with prospective customers, regard-
less of how dark the day is, until "normal night hours. II All this to achieve a
microscopic saving of electrical energy which for full use equals only approxi-
mately two-tenths of one per cent (using highest figures for full use, .28 of 1%).
It is this kind of regulation that drives our citizens up the wall and causes dis-
trust and resentment of Washington; is contrary to the policy of our Republican
platform clearly set forth in the keynote address, and later by other party stal-
warts. I am sure the feeling of the President is that he would be opposed to
such regulation.
But let me make it clear at this point that I am not seeking
exemption.
On the contrary, I proposed to the Office of Contingency Planning a simple alter-
native plan that would place the responsibility for energy conservation equally
across the board upon each establishment, leaving it to management to determine
how best to save energy in a way that would do the least harm to the business.
1111 Meta Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45237
513 / 242-1500
- 2 -
Mr. James Cannon
August 23, 1976
If the present goal of 10% saving is found not sufficient, the goal could be in-
creased to 15% or more as determined by the need, but it could not be so con-
trolled under the Plan now drafted. Policing this alternate plan would involve
a minimum staff and could be left to local authorities without the problem of
subjective judgments and interpretation of the language in certain sections of
the present Plan.
I made this same proposal to John C. Sawhill, former Director of the FEA in
1973 and it was accepted, as is evidenced by his letter to me, copy of which
is attached. It was also on the record of congressional intent through the
Taft amendment, Jackson colloquy, and Clancy remarks, as documented in the
Addenda.
My deep concern, Mr. Cannon, is the effect of the present Plan upon small
business, particularly retail merchants and others who depend upon their sign
which hangs or stands in front of their business to identify the establishment,
communicate to prospective customers the goods of services available at that
location for spot or future purchases. These signs are called "on-premise
illuminated advertising signs."
My plea to you is with specific regard to the provision in the Plan under Part 5
which rules that "on-premise advertising signs and window displays may only
be illuminated during normal night hours of operation of an establishment."
a. The fundamental error is that the Plan confuses on-premise advertising
signage, which is commercial communication, with lighting, which it is
not. You will be interested in the ruling of the U. S. Supreme Court on
May 24, 1976, that a ban on prescription drug advertising by the Virginia
State Board of Pharmacy violated the first amendment guaranteeing freedom
of speech. Their judgment was that although the "advertiser's interest
in a commercial advertisement is purely economic, this does not disqualify
him from protection under the first and fourteenth amendments. Both the
individual consumer and society in general may have strong interests in
the free flow of commercial information." In good conscience, shouldn't
the small businessman be provided the same protection under the first
amendment by the FEA?
b. The proposed plan unfairly discriminates against small business in favor
of big business retailers. Big business retailers have easily identifiable
buildings; use radio, television, and newspaper spreads to reach their
market; big chain hotels use Watts lines, convention bureaus, and book-
ing agents -- none of which are economically available to small business
proprietors. Even if they could afford these means of communication, 75%
of it would fall outside the area they can serve.
GERALE FORD LIBRARY
- 3 -
Mr. James Cannon
August 23, 1976
Most people outside of retailing have never thought of it before, but
properly understood, the on-premise illuminated advertising sign is the
principal means, and in many cases the only means, the small business
proprietor has of communicating the goods or services available at that
location, together with the identity of the business. To deprive small
business of the opportunity to advertise by the principal or only means
available to them, while permitting the big business retailers to do so,
is clearly a violation of the spirit and possibly the letter of the fourteenth
amendment.
It is important to understand that retailing involves one out of six em-
ployed Americans (these are Ohio statistics which I believe are typical)
and their families. Aside from the issues of fairness and over-regulation,
it has grave economic implications for our country because should an
emergency occur which would require enforcement of the Plan, other fac-
tors in an energy crisis would sharply curtail retail business, especially
automobile-oriented business, and for the government to force a cut
back of sales at the retail level (where recessions begin) would trigger
serious economic consequences -- avoidable and unnecessary difficulties.
C. You will, I believe, find the ambiguous nature of the language interesting.
The Plan reads: "on-premise advertising signs and window displays may
only be illuminated during normal nighthours of operation of an establish-
ment."
1. What are 'hormal night hours"? (See Webster.) The ambiguity
itself opens the door for a wide range of interpretation at every
level: federal, state, municipal. Result: confusion, and legis-
lative problems too massive for small business to cope with.
2. If "night hours" only, what about New England, upper New York,
Michigan, Wisconsin, and the upper western states where there
is darkness in the late afternoon during the winter months -- not
to mention Alaska. Has no one considered snowstorms, rain,
fog or smog which cause daytime darkness everywhere -- in New
York City or the side streets of Philadelphia, for example ? Even
Georgetown. How would you find a drug store, driving in heavy
traffic, if its sign was out?
d. Another aspect of the Plan seems worthy of consideration: Statistics made
available at the public hearings on the Energy Conservation Contingency
Plan show that only seventeen per cent (17%) of U. S. electrical energy
is generated by oil fired turbines, the remainder deriving its generation
from coal, hydro, and nuclear power. Only in certain areas of the country,
- 4 -
Mr. James Cannon
August 23, 1976
therefore, would contingencies requiring the conservation of electrical
energy be required. In the case of a petroleum shortfall, bearing in
mind the economic effect of such a shortfall all over the country in terms
of automobile oriented and petroleum based business and employment,
wouldn't it be unwise to superimpose electrical restrictions where none
was required?
e. Of concern to those at FEA who have opposed the exclusion of on-premise
signage is the opinion that because of their high visibility, such signs
when illuminated at night might appear to be a visible waste of energy.
The fact is that an average 3' X 5' or 4' X 6' on-premise illuminated sign
uses three (3) or four (4) fluorescent lamps similar to those used in many
office or incandescent fixtures, i. e., 260 to 330 watts. Typically,
they do not credit free enterprise with the initiative to meet this problem
on a public relations basis.
f. In support of our premise that energy conservation should be required
equally of each establishment, and that management should be permitted
to determine how it can accomplish required energy conservation with the
least harm to the business (in areas where required), it should be noted
that retailers can turn off lights in the rear of the store or restaurant and
save more energy.
One restaurant operator told me he can, with
a little planning, turn off one device in the
kitchen for one hour and save all the current
his on-premise advertising sign uses all week.
g. No one is impressed by the numbers of energy conserved through curtail-
ing on-premise advertising signage. If an energy emergency occurs,
merchants, being aware, will conserve naturally without over-regulation
from Washington.
h. Small business is not asking for exemption -- only for fair treatment, pro-
tection under the first and fourteenth amendments, and language not invit-
ing subjective interpretations by fifty state legislatures and their various
FORD
subcommittees and energy enforcement agencies.
In Conclusion:
GERALD
We have explained that on-premise illuminated advertising signs are not lighting
fixtures, the purpose of which is to light an area. They are in fact a communica-
tion device - an absolutely essential means of communication for small business
- 5 -
Mr. James Cannon
August 23, 1976
retailers and automobile oriented businesses (drive-ins, motels, shopping
centers, et cetera). We have explained that because the numbers of energy
conserved is so minimal that curtailment would be counter-productive, and
that the bureaucracy simply could not get into the business of regulating every
2/10 of 1% of electrical usage.
We have explained that the Energy Conservation Contingency Plan is contrary
to the intent of Congress in 1973, and a reversal of previous FEA stated policy.
We therefore request that you advise the Domestic Council and the Energy Re-
Sources Council to direct the FEA to remove on-premise illuminated signs from
the Energy Conservation Contingency Plan.
Further, we suggest that due consideration be given to a plan to achieve energy
conservation where and when required, in such types of energy as may be appro-
priate, equally on the basis of the total energy requirements of each establish-
ment, permitting management to determine how it can accomplish such conserva-
tion with the least harm or disruption to the functions therein.
Note: FEA has informed me that they have studies under way on
this concept, following my suggestions to them on this subject.
Can we count on your support?
Sincerely yours,
Ephn Damb John K. Lamb
For the Business Advertising Council
JKL:1m
Addendum A
FEDERAL ENERGY OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20461
June 6, 1974
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. John K. Lamb
Lamb and Company, Inc.
1111 Meta Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45237
Dear Mr. Lamb:
I understand that there continues to be considerable
confusion as to the government's position with respect to
the use of electrical advertising signs. Apparently the
confusion began with a provision included in a bill con-
sidered last fall by the Senate which would have required
a substantial reduction in the use of all electrical
advertising signs. I can readily understand your concern
since the confusion apparently is having a serious and
unnecessary impact on retail merchants and the electrical
sign industry.
The Federal Energy Office recognizes that all electrical
signs should not be considered in the same way for energy
conservation purposes. First, I should make clear that we
feel strongly that energy conservation is still very
important. This does not mean that the drastic actions
such as those recommended during the embargo are required,
but it does mean continuing efforts will be necessary to
avoid spot shortages in the coming months and to reduce the
rate of growth in the Nation's longer term demand for energy.
Specifically with respect to electrical advertising signs,
the Federal Energy Office recognizes that there are two
general categories: outdoor electrical signs that are
generally located off the premises of business establish-
ments and "on premise" signs used to show the identity of
the business and goods or services available at that location.
Energy conservation efforts should be approached differently
for each category.
CONSERVE
AMERICA'S
ENERGY
R.FORD CIRRARY
Save Energy and You Serve America!
- 2 -
In the "off premise" sign category, the Federal Energy
Office has been working with the outdoor advertising
industry to develop a voluntary energy curtailment program
to achieve a 25 percent energy reduction by all such users
across the Nation.
In the "on premise" sign category, our policy is to consider
electrical signs as a part of the total energy requirements
of the establishment. We encourage owners and managers to
develop energy conservation plans which reduce the establish-
ment's overall energy requirements but to do this in a way
that has the least impact on the firm's livelihood and
productivity. This may mean that electricity for the
lighting of window displays, interior lighting, heating or
cooling, or other uses should be reduced rather than turning
off their "on premise" signs. This decision should be left
to the firm's management.
I hope this will clarify our position and I appreciate
knowing of your continued interest and support for energy
conservation activities.
Sincerely,
John C. Sawhill
Administrator
FORD LIBRARY & CERALO
Addendum B
November 16, 1973
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE
20693
QUORUM CALL
NUNN) be listed as a cosponsor of the
fed through current reducing transform-
modification.
ers. These signs are important to the re-
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
tail merchants who are highly dependent
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
continuing to reserve the right to object,
upon them. In some cases they take the
may I ask the distinguished sponsor of
place of store windows. In others, they
will call the roll.
the amendment if this request has been
identify the location to a motorist mov-
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
cleared with the distinguished junior
ing at 25 or 50 miles an hour on the street
ceeded to call the roll.
Senator from Georgia?
or highway. In any event, they are valu-
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
Mr. TAFT. The Senator from
able to the storeowners who would be
I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
Georgia requested that he be listed as
severely hurt if their use were to be
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
a cosponsor, and the request has been
curtailed.
cleared with the Senator.
I urge that efforts be made in imple-
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
mentation so that the small firm will not
I have no objection.
bear the burden or discriminatory brunt
NATIONAL ENERGY EMERGENCY
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
of the necessary controls on energy
ACT OF 1973
objection, it is so ordered.
usage. In addition, measures should be
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, this amend-
taken so that possible materials short-
The Senate resumed the consideration
ment would add to subsection b. a clause
ages resulting from energy shortages are
of the bill (S. 2589) to authorize and di-
4. saying: "any controls instituted shall
not proportionately greater for small
rect the President and State and local
be insofar as practicable, equitably ap-
firms.
governments to develop contingency
plied to all businesses, whether large or
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I think
plans for reducing petroleum consump-
small; and due consideration shall be
this is an excellent amendment that sig-
tion, and assuring the continuation of
given to the unique problems of retailing
nificantly improves the bill, and the com-
vital public services in the event of emer-
establishments and small business so as
mittee supports the bill.
gency fuel shortages or severe disloca-
not to discriminate or cause unneces-
Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, I support
tions in the Nation's fuel distribution
sary hardship in the administration or
the amendment.
system, and for other purposes.
implementation of the provisions of this
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I offer an
Act."
tion is on agreeing to the amendment as
amendment to section 303 of the bill, as
The National Energy Emergency Act
modified.
amended by the Nunn amendment. I call
of 1973 provides that the rationing and
The amendment as modified is agreed
up my amendment No. 663, as modified
conservation program provided for shall
to
for consideration.
include measures capable of reducing
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
energy consumption in the affected areas
is open to further amendment.
what was that request?
by no less than 10 percent within 10
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is this an
days and by no less than 25 percent
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
amendment to the pending measure or to
within 4 weeks after implementation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
one of the bills we have just passed?
Several examples are mentioned, includ-
will call the roll.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, it is an
ing lighted advertising, and limitations
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
amendment to the pending measure.
on operating hours of commercial estab-
ceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
lishments.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President
amendment as modified will be stated.
In passing judgment on this legisla-
I ask unanimous consent that the order
FORD
The second assistant legislative clerk
tion, it is recognized that there may be
for the quorum call be rescinded.
read as follows:
hardships during this energy emergency,
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
After section 302(d) add the following:
but with the proper cooperation of State
objection, it is so ordered.
(D) any controls instituted shall be inso-
and local governments and the pub-
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BEN-
LIBRARY
far as practicable, equitably applied to all
lic, hopefully no one sector of the econ-
NETT). In accordance with the previous
businesses, whether large or small; and due
omy will bear a disproportional share
consideration shall be given to the unique
order, the Chair now lays before the Sen-
of the burden.
problems of retailing establishments and
ate the amendment of the Senator from
small business so as not to discriminate or
The suggestion in this legislation that
Washington (Mr. JACKSON), No. 685,
cause unnecessary hardship in the adminis-
limitations may be placed on the operat-
without objection, the text of the amend-
tration or implementation of the provisions
ing hours of commercial establishments,
ment will be printed in the RECORD.
of this Act.
has caused concern among many owners
The amendment reads as follows:
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, this amend-
of small shops and businesses, such as
AMENDMENT No. 685
ment I think is a noncontroversial one.
neighborhood grocery stores, which de-
Add a new Section 101 (h) after line 2,
It simply expresses a general direction
pend largely upon after-hour trade for
at page 14, as follows:
survival
with respect to the small business and
"(h) the protection and fostering of com-
retail establishments insofar as the
The purpose of my amendment, there-
petition and the prevention of anticompeti-
pending bill is concerned.
fore, is to insure that these small busi-
tive practices and feets are vital during the
nesses be given equal consideration in
energy emergency.'
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Add a new Section 102(h) áfter line 6, at
Chair will interrupt the Senator to state
implementation and administration of
page 15, as follows:
that since this is an amendment to an
the conservation measures to reach our
"(h) insure against anticompetitive prac-
amendment that has already been agreed
goals. This is not to say that anyone
tices and effects and preserve, enhance, and
to, the Senator must have unanimous
should be totally exempted from coopera-
facilitate competition in the development,
consent to consider the modification at
tion in saving our energy, for we all must
production, transportation, distribution and
this time.
work together. However, in implement-
marketing of energy resources."
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I ask unani-
ing the act, it would seem to be possible
Add a new Section 312 after line 8, at
mous consent that I be permitted to have
to avoid causing undue hardship to any
page 33, as follows, and redesignate the re-
maining sections:
my amendment considered at this time.
one sector of the economy.
"SEC. 312. ANTITRUST PROVISIONS.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
This same provision of the bill, cutting
(a) Except as specifically provided in sub-
objection to the request of the Senator
back energy consumption by 25 percent
sections (f) and (k), no provision of this
from Ohio?
within 4 weeks after implementation,
Act shall be deemed to convey to any person
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
raises another question.
subject to this Act any immunity from civil
reserving the right to object, I have no
Would this provision mean that on-
or criminal liability, or to create defenses
desire to object but I inquire as to whose
to actions, under the antitrust laws.
premise identification signs which are
amendment this would amend.
(b) As used in this section, the term "anti-
electrically lighted would be curtailed by
trust laws" includes—
Mr. TAFT. This amendment would
25 percent? As I understand it, there are
amend the amendment of the Senator
(1) the Act entitled "An Act to protect
two kinds of signs involved in this cate-
trade and commerce against unlawful re-
from Georgia (Mr. NUNN).
gory. These are fluorescent signs, which
straints and monopolies", approved July 2,
I also ask unanimous consent that the
are illuminated by fluorescent tubes, sim-
1890 (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.)
name of the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
ilar to those in our offices, and neon signs
(2) the Act entitled "An Act to supplement
STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD D. CLANCY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO Addendum B
Mr. CLANCY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank
you for providing me this opportunity to submit testimony on this
very important issue, the energy crisis. I would like to bring your
attention to what I foresee to be a critical problem for small businesses
and ultimately for the country.
Many suggestions have been made as to how we can best conserve
our energy. One example includes limitations on retail merchants use
of on-premises identification signs. I am referring especially to small
store identification signs located on the premises of the business, they
identify. These signs use relatively little electricity, and more current
could be saved by turning off the lights in the back of the store or in
the storeroom, which the small businessman is quite willing to do.
The retail merchant is highly dependent upon these signs. In some
cases thev take the place of a show window. In others they are needed
to identify the location of a business to a motorist moving at 25 to
50 miles an hour on the street or highway. People think businesses are
closed when their signs are not lighted. Businesses cannot do without
them during the hours in which they are open without severe loss of
patronage.
Already merchants have suffered from price controls and a shortage
in their inventory of goods they will have to sell. To be forced to do
without the illumination of their identification signs during the time
they are open, instead of turning off fixtures on the inside, could cause
the closing of many retail establishments.
After having met with representatives of small businesses, I have
concluded that they are quite willing to cut back on the amount of en-
ergy they use as long as they are allowed to decide where these cut-
backs will be made. It seems reasonable that businesses should be
allowed to decide where to make their sacrifices for the national good.
I urge that efforts be made to keep small businesses from bearing
the burden of discriminatory brunt of the necessary controls on energy
usage. It might be well, in legislation, to see that curtailment of lighted
advertisements not include in-premise business identification signs.
Addendum B
The purpose of my amendment, therefore, is to insure that these small businesses be
given equal consideration in implementation and administration of the conservation
measures to reach our goals. This is not to say that anyone should be totally exempted
from cooperation in saving our energy, for we all must work together. However, in
implementing the act, it would seem to be possible to avoid causing undue hardship to
any one sector of the economy
These signs are important to the retail merchants who are highly dependent upon them.
In some cases they take the place of store windows. In others they identify the location
to a motorist moving at 25 or 50 miles an hour on the street or highway. In any event,
they are valuable to the storeowners who would be severely hurt if their use were to be
curtailed
2. The Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, chaired by Senator Jackson of
Washington, considered the emergency energy bill (S. 2589). The initial draft of this
bill provided for "restrictions against the use of lighted advertising." This language
was subsequently deleted by Senator Jackson. The subsequent conference report on
S. 2589, the National Energy Emergency Act of 1973, at Senator Jackson's request,
read in part as follows:
To the maximum extent practicable, any restrictions on the use of energy shall be designed
to be carried out in such manner so as to be fair and to create a reasonable distribution of
the burden of such restriction on all sectors of the economy, without imposing an un-
reasonably disproportionate share of such burden on any specific industry, business or
commercial enterprise, or on an individual segment thereof and shall give due consider-
ation to the needs of commercial, retail and service establishments whose normal func-
tion is to supply goods and services of an essential convenience nature during times of
day other than conventional daytime working hours.
Finally, while HR 11031 (House version of the National Energy Emergency Act of 1973)
was under consideration in the House of Representatives, Rep. Donald Clancy (R) sub-
mitted testimony to the drafting committee similar to Senator Taft's amendment to the
Senate bill, and added these comments:
After having met with representatives of small businesses I have concluded that they are
quite willing to cut back on the amount of energy they use as long as they are allowed to
decide where these cutbacks will be made. It seems reasonable that businesses should be
allowed to decide where to make their sacrifices for the national good.
I urge that efforts be made to keep small businesses from bearing the burden or discrimi-
natory brunt of the necessary controls on energy usage. It might be well, in legislation, to
see that curtailment of lighted advertisements not include "on-premise" business identifi-
cation signs.
These actions on the part of prominent Congressmen were notice to all concerned that the
Congress of the United States took full cognizance of the retail merchant's dependence
upon his on-premise illuminated sign and made clear their intent to see that no selective
regulation was imposed upon the retailers' business signs.
Finally, the administrative agency primarily concerned with energy issued a letter which
further spelled out in specific detail the government position for all concerned with drafting
or implementing regulations affecting on-premise illuminated signs.
11
Energy
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 30, 1976
Dear Mr. Fowler:
Thank you for your letter of September 24
and the helpful material you enclosed.
I very much appreciated the opportunity
of meeting with you and Mr. Tavoulareas
and am forwarding your materials to the
appropriate members of the White House
staff.
Thank you again for giving us your views.
Sincerely,
James M. Cannon
Assistant to the President
for Domestic Affairs
J. Edward Fowler
150 East 42nd Street
New York, N.Y. 10017
FORD LIBRARY is
J. EDWARD FOWLER
150 EAST 42ND STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017
76 L
4
53
September 24, 1976
Dear Mr. Cannon,
Last Friday we visited on the subject of the
pending Bills to amend the Export Administration
Act. Since then we have put together the enclosed
outline of some of the many reasons why we think
the legislation should not be approved. I hope
this further clarifies the points we outlined dur-
ing our visit.
I also enclose a copy of a telegram sent to-
day by Herb Schmertz, our Vice President for Public
Affairs, to Representative Rosenthal and Members
of the House/Senate Conference Committee. That
telex sets forth a detailed explanation of the
reasons underlying the points made in our newspaper
advertisement last week. It is intended to clarify
the enormous potential for harm to the United States
which could be caused by this legislation.
Finally, I think you will be interested in the
article from Forbes entitled "How to Legislate a
Disaster", also enclosed.
I do hope these materials will be of some help
in dealing with this important subject.
Sincerely yours,
Ed Pole
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Enc.
file
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
return to Kris
October 2, 1976
for pending file
Energy
MEMORANDUM TO:
GLENN SCHLEEDE
FROM:
JIM CANNON Jun
I would appreciate it very much if you would call
Mr. Bickwit of Senator Glenn's office and tell him
I
would be glad to talk to Senator Glenn about the
P
iketon plant after he returns from China.
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 2, 1976
MEMO TO:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
ALLEN MOORE
SUBJECT:
Piketon nuclear plant
Glenn informs me that the ERDA authorization
bill did not pass before adjournment. There
was, however, a continuing resolution for
ERDA. Glenn is attempting to find out
whether or not this has an impact on contin-
ued construction of the Piketon plant. He
thinks you should hold off talking to
Senator Glenn's aide (Leonard Bickwit) until
this issue is clarified. We will keep you
informed orr this.
FORD LIBRARY is 02
JOHN GLENN
COMMITTEES:
OHIO
INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
United States Senate
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
1976
October SEP 1, 1976
Mr. James Cannon
Director, The Domestic Council
pleane list for
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500
money
Dear Mr. Cannon:
I understand that you are extremely busy at this time,
but it has been more than a week since I began trying to
reach you on a matter of considerable importance to this
office. On Monday of this week I sent a copy of the enclosed
article to Glen Schleede and asked him to get back to me on
two questions relating to a one-sentence quote in the article.
You were quoted as stating, "Without Congress passing this
legislation in this session, this just isn't going to proceed."
In the context of the article it is clear that "this legislation"
refers to the proposed Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act and that "this"
in the second clause of the quote refers to the enrichment plant
in Piketon, Ohio.
My two questions are these : 1) Is the quote accurate; and
2) If so, what does it mean in view of the fact that the proposed
ERDA Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 1977 contains $230 million
for the plant and the already-passed Public Works Appropriation
Bill for Fiscal Year 1977 contains $178 million?
Mr. Schleede tells me that you simply have not been able to
focus on these questions because of your schedule. In light of
our great interest in the matter and the straightforwardness of
the questions, however, I sincerely hope you will be able to do
so before the end of the day.
Best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Provid Bihit,
Leonard Bickwit, Jr.
Chief Legislative Assistant
LB:mh
CC: Glen Schleede
FORD LIBRARY 078879
100109
Atomic Plant For Piketon
Threatened By Senators
By George Embrey
tor of the White House Domestic
ers during the construction phase over
Chief, Dispatch Washington Bureou
Council, told The Dispatch he had
a number of years.
WASHINGTON - President Ford's
passed on his warning about the
SENATE MAJORITY leader Mike
domestic adviser said Saturday the
proposed $2.7 billion project to Gov.
Mansfield, D-Montana, tried to get
oposed $2.7 billion addition to the
James A. Rhodes.
Glenn and other objectors to the
keton, Ohio, atomic energy factory
Ford has made good on his pledge in
legislation to agree to a compromise
ust isn't going to proceed" without a
Columbus before the June 8 Ohio
this week to allow eight hours of
alled piece of legislation.
primary election to push for the
debate in the heavily loaded Senate
Sen. John Glenn, D-Ohio, is the
massive project north of Portsmouth.
schedule before Congress adjourns
der in blocking action in the Senate
U. S. Rep. William H. Harsha, R-
Oct. 2.
the proposed legislation, the Nu-
Portsmouth, has predicted the project
Glenn is the leader of a dozen
aur Fuel Assurance Act of 1976:
at the U. S. atomic plant at Piketon
JAMES CANNON, executive direc-
would employ more than 5,000 work-
senators who refused Mansfield's com-
promise. Glenn says he is not con-
vinced the legislation has enough
safeguards to prevent Arabs from
obtaining nuclear weapons material.
After succeeding in blocking senate
action on the legislation, Glenn depart-
ed vith Mansfield for a visit to the
People's Republic of China. Glenn has
been criticized by U.S. Rep. Delbert T.
Latta, R-Bowling Green, for taking
part in a "junket" which will keep him
out of the country for the rest of this
year's Congress.
GLENN'S TOP legislative aide, Len
Beckwit, has assurred reporters that
other legislation already approved by
Congress or certain of being enacted
would clear the first $255 million Ford
requested for preliminary work on the
Piketon plant.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Cannon disputes the Glenn-Beckwit
argument. Cannon said Saturday that
without çongressional action on the
now stalled Nuclear Fuel Assurance
Act, would be jeoparidized.
"Without Congress passing this
legislation in this session, this just isn't
going to proceed," Cannon said.
"THERE ARE just too many people
who want to block any development of
new facilities to provide nuclear fuel,"
Cannon said.
The Piketon plant addition would
be the first new facility in the
government's attempt to assure the
United States of an ample supply of
nucleur fuel or nuclear power plants to
generate electricity and provide other
energy for the foreseeable future.
Cannon explained that unless the
legislation is passed before Congress
quits Oct. 2, the President would have
to start all over again with the new
Congress toward getting the necessary
legislation.
CANNON SAID that a strong ally of
the Ford administration and will not
be around to help next year. Sen. John
Pastore, D-Rhode Island, chairman of
the Joint Senate-House Atomic Energy
Committee, has pushed for the pro-
posed Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act, but
he is retiring.
Cannon said he is sure President
Ford will win the election Nov. 2 and
continue to press for the Piketon
addition. But Cannon said Democratic
candidate Jimmy Carter, whom Glenn
is supporting, has questioned whether
the U.S. should proceed with develop-
ing nuclear fuel in enrichment facili-
ties such as the Piketon addition.
Cannon said that last week a major
French magazine carried a story that
French government officials viewed
the opposition to United States devel-
opment of new nuclear fuel manufac-
turing facilities to be such that France
should produce nuclear fuel for world
markets.
COLUMBUS DISPATCH
United States Senate
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
WASHINGTON, D.C 20510
John Sleem U.S.S.
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
Mr. James Cannon
Director, The Domestic Council
2nd Floor, West Wing
The White House
2
WHITE HOUSE
POST # A-4
OCT E 1976
Processed by, we
Rle
October 5, 1976
Anergy
1976 OCT 5 PM / 48
Dear Bill:
On behalf of Jim Cannon, I would like
to thank you for the copy of Energy
Perspectives 2. It will be very
useful to both of us.
Sincerely,
IS!
Glenn R. Schleede
Associate Director
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Domestic Council
Mr. William L. Fisher
Assistant Secretary of Interior
Washington, D. C. 20240
CC: Jim Cannon
100511
Glenn Schleede
THE INTERIOR `S
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
March
3,
1849
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
SEP 27 1976
Honorable James Cannon
Executive Director of the
Domestic Council
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. Cannon:
On behalf of the Secretary, I am pleased to
send you a copy of our new publication, "Energy
Perspectives 2," a presentation of major energy
and energy-related data.
I believe this report will be helpful in an
understanding and analysis of the current and
future energy situation.
FORD LIBRARY
Assistant Secretary
of the Interior
Enclosure
AMERICAN REVOLUTION WIDENTENNAL
1776-1976
TM
a
Energy
THE WHITE HOUSE
INFORMATION
WASHINGTON
October 12, 1976
1976 OCT 13 PM 2 10
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
GLENN SCHLEEDE
SUBJECT:
OCS LEASING
I thought you might like to see a flow chart presentation
of the OCS leasing and development process -- as it now
stands and as it would have worked had the OCS bill been
enacted. Fortunately, that bill never made it to the
President's desk.
I'd like to have the attached flow chart back.
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
Attachment.
Glenn, is probably not at this going
to have Irin the a chance next to 20 looh days. as him Why
during don't you come 2. back He abould
it
post see it Nov of way will D appreciated let him until it he that has
of the its is to a dance wait to enjoy 101311 Art
Energy
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 14, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JACK MARSH
GLRALD FORD LIBRARY
FROM:
JIM CANNO
SUBJECT:
September Jun Letter from
former Charles Jonas
We have followed up on the letter you received from Charles
Jonas. I am sorry for the delay in getting back to you on
it.
Briefly, the situation with respect to Mr. Besser's communica-
tion to the National Bureau of Standards, Office of Energy
Related Inventions, is as follows:
The letter was received and given a preliminary screening.
It is one of many thousand received by the office over
the last few months.
The office routinely screens the letters and puts them
into three categories according to priority for follow-
up:
-- Priority I. Inventions that appear to involve something
new and perhaps have some merit for further development.
-- Priority II. Inventions that may have technical
economic merit but are not new. (This is where
Mr. Besser's proposal falls.)
-- Priority III. Proposals which do not appear worthy
of further consideration.
Bureau of Standards could not give a good estimate of when
they could get back to Mr. Besser's proposal because of
their decision to spend time on the unique ideas that
appear to have some merit.
Even though the outlook for attention from the Bureau of
Standards is bleak, there may be some interest from the
Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA).
Specifically:
There are three potential program areas in ERDA where
-2-
Mr. Besser's proposal can be considered. Two of them
at least have funds available.
ERDA tells us the technology Mr. Besser has in mind
has been demonstrated. The question is whether or not
the economics make sense. ERDA and/or private industrial
organizations are already carrying out some demonstration
projects but none of them involves a chicken-egg laying
facility, and none involve the relatively small scale
that Mr. Besser has in mind.
ERDA is willing to consider the proposal further; i.e.,
evaluate its technical and economic merit.
Even before ERDA responded to our inquiry based on your
September 13 memo, ERDA contacted Mr. Jonas and arranged
for him to come to ERDA headquarters and discuss his proposal.
The ERDA notes on the discussions with Mr. Jonas are
attached for your information.
Attachment.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 11, 1976
NOTE TO:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
GLEN SCHLEEDE
SUBJECT:
September 9, 1976 Letter from former
Congressman Charles Jonas
Here is a somewhat belated response to Jack Marsh's
request to you. I'm embarrassed about the delay in
responding to him but not the speed with which Mr.
Jonas' request was handled by ERDA. They responded
very quickly.
RECOMMENDATION
That you sign the attached memo to Jack Marsh.
Attachment.
FORD LIBRARY 078878 9778
101204
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
DATE: 9/16
TO:
Schleede
FROM:
ALLEN MOORE
SUBJECT:
ACTION
FYI:
Pladvisise
a call and @ facts
sent to seamons for
9/80/76
CC: Leach
Schleede
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 13, 1976
MEMORANDUM TO: JIM CANNON
FROM:
JACK MARSH
Jim, attached is a self-explanatory letter from
former Congressman Charles Jonas.
Anything you can do would be appreciated.
give
FORD LIBRARY & GRRALD
I'd appreciate your
personal review 8 this
Thank
Jahn
CO: Leech
Schloade
September 13, 1975
Dear Charles:
Many thanks for your letter of
September 9 concerning the aumerous
problems that Charles Besser has en-
countered with regard to his invention.
I an taking the liberty of forwarding
your letter to appropriate people here
at the White House, I certainly hope
our afforts prove fruitful. You should
be receiving further word on this matter
in the vary near future.
With warmest personal regards, I
remain,
Sincerely,
John 0. 'Marsh, Jr.
Counsellor to the President
The Nonorable Charles R. Jonas
Neinstein, Sturges, Odom,
Bigger and Jonas
FORD LIBRARY is 038470
Attorneys at Law
810 Baxter Street Cul-de-Sac
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
cb
CC: JCannon
WEINSTEIN, STURGES, Одом. BIGGER AND JONAS. P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
810 BAXTER STREET CUL-DE-SAC
MAURICE A.WEINSTEIN
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28202
704-333-0511
WILLIAM W. STURGES
-. LAFONTINE ODOM
September 9, 1976
CABLE ADDRESS
RICHARD A. BIGGER, JR.
"CHARLEX"
ERIC A.JONAS
JOHN J. DOYLE. JR.
ALLAN W. SINGER
CHARLES R. JONAS
ROBERT D. HOFFMAN
OF COUNSEL
The Honorable John 0. Marsh
Office of the President
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Jack:
Here is another example of bureaucratic foot-dragging.
You may or may not remember that on the plane from Charlotte
to Washington on May 20, 1975, I was having a visit with the
President and sounded off about the frustrations the business
community. feels in not being able to get any decisions out of
the bureaucracy. He told me to send him some examples through
Don Rumsfeld, and I sent one that would have knocked his eyes
out if the President had ever seen it. But unfortunately it
got lost being shuffled about in the FEA and nothing, absolutely
nothing, ever happened as a result of the example being sent
forward.
Now I have another one and am taking the liberty of reciting
it to you in the hope that you might be willing to put it in the
hands of someone at the White House who may be instrumental in
getting us a decision.
There is a man in Charlotte named Charles S. Besser, who
invented the famous Besser furnace. He sold more than a million
dollars worth of these furnaces until he went broke because he
contracted to supply a 200 or 300 hundred house development with
furnaces at a price less than it cost him to manufacture them,
due to steep and unforeseen increases in the cost of labor and
materials after he signed the contract. He has now invented, and
The Honorable John O. Marsh
September 9, 1976
Page Two
has an application for a patent pending, a continuous system for
producing methane gas. He has erected a small pilot plant in his
backyard, and I personally have witnessed his conversion of human
waste into methane gas which he uses to light and heat his home,
and the by-product from which is liquid fertilizer from which he
has managed to extract the odor. He has also constructed a
laboratory in his garage which he has used to demonstrate his
ability to produce gas from chicken and COW manure. Various people
have witnessed his demonstrations and all with whom I have talked
are agreed that he does indeed have a process which in the future
might go a long way toward solving our energy problem. The
literature on this subject indicates that various research organiza
tions in a number of universities around the country are working on
this same idea, although Besser tells me that no one has used the
continuous process he has invented and for which he has a patent
pending.
Besser's present trouble is that he has exhausted all of his
resources in working on this invention, building the pilot plant
and the laboratory. I personally know that he put a second mortgage
on his house and lot to raise the money to build the laboratory
earlier this year. He did that because he had a real good prospect
of making a deal with a chicken producer in which he would get rid
of the manure and at the same time produce enough gas to meet his
requirements at his plant. The prospect of that deal fell through
simply because the chicken producer was not willing to put up the
perhaps $100,000 it would cost to build a plant of a size sufficient
to take care of his needs; but he told Mr. Besser that if he could
obtain a grant to finance the construction of a commercial-type pilo
plant in which he could demonstrate the economic feasibility of his
process, this man not only would contract to have him install a syst
at his place, but could assure Besser that he would have calls to
install similar plants all over the United States.
Now I lead up to the purpose in writing you. Mr. Besser has
been trying since early May to have the Office of Energy-Related
Inventions in the National Bureau of Standards, U. S. Department of
Commerce, make an evaluation of his process. Congressman Jim Martir
has written Mr. George P. Lewett, Chief of that office, any number
of times urging him to proceed with the evaluation and all Mr. Marti
has received from Mr. Lewett is that the materials submitted by Mr.
Besser will be "considered in evaluating
invention".
I
myself
The Honorable John O. Marsh
September 9, 1976
Page Three
wrote Mr. Lewett on June 23 a three-page letter in which I outlined
what Mr. Besser has done, and strongly urged Mr. Lewett to send a
representative to Charlotte to take a look on the grounds at the
process. I informed them that he could come from Washington to
Charlotte in an hour and a quarter, and that we would meet the plane
and take his representative out for a demonstration and put him back
on the plane, and he would be back in Washington before the end of
the day. I gave him my telephone number and Mr. Besser's number and
requested him to inform either of us if he would send someone here t
witness a demonstration. That letter was dated June 23, 1976, and t
date I have not had any answer to it.
Desperate for some decision on his application for a research
or demonstration grant, Mr. Besser lost heart over the inability of
Congressman Martin or me to get any decision out of Mr. Lewett so in
early July, he wrote Senator Ted Kennedy, and explained what he had
developed and solicited his help. Senator Kennedy replied quite
promptly and informed Mr. Besser that he had inquired at the Office
of Energy-Related Inventions which is evaluating the feasibility of
his invention for ERDA, and had been informed that a reevaluation
would be initiated within two weeks and should be completed by the
middle of September. He rèquested Mr. Besser to communicate with
him again if by the middle of September he had not received the
results of the evaluation apparently going on in the Office of ERI.
Mr. Besser has also called my attention to a recent statement
by Senator Gaylord Nelson pointing out the importance of moving
vigorously in this field as an anti-pollution and energy-producing
measure. There ought to be someone in the Administration interested
enough in the possibilities involved in this process to get these
people in the Office of Energy-Related Inventions at the Bureau of
Standards off of dead center so that Besser can see the results of
their evaluation. I honestly cannot understand why it would take
five or six months to do this or why Mr. Lewett would ignore my
letter and the suggestion that he send someone here to take a view
of what Besser has done. The literature on this subject is unanimou
in support of this program, as previously stated; and in my judgment
the creation of gas from human and other wastes is going to be one
of the waves of the future. I would like to see this Administration
The Honorable John 0. Marsh
September 9, 1976
Page Four
get some credit for inaugurating or stimulating this effort. The
following quotation is from a recent issue of Intelligence Digest:
"Hong Kong has begun to export solid human waste to
China where it is being used for fertilizer and to
produce methane gas for lighting homes."
If they can do this in China, why don't we try it in the United
States, particularly since we are rapidly running out of natural
gas? This is especially important if that professor of agricultural
engineering at Iowa State University was correct when he recently
stated that "For every year we burn natural gas as a fuel, we lose
16 years' supply of gas as a raw material."
I became interested in this matter when Mr. Besser came to
me with a request that I see if I couldn't help expedite his efforts
to obtain a grant from the Federal Government to continue his
experimentation and build a pilot plant from which he can demonstrat
the economic feasibility of his process. So far I have gotten nowhe
not even a reply to a letter as above stated, and so far Congressmar
Martin has failed in his efforts to get a decision, and as a last
resort I am appealing to you to see if someone at the White House
will not demonstrate sufficient interest in this matter to give a
helping hand.
Yours sincerely,
Charles SA R. Jonas
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
CRJ/jg
& DEVELOPMENT NOIJN ADMINISTRA
UNITED STATES
ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20545
USA
October 4, 1976
Mr. Glenn Schleede
The White House
Dear Mr. Schleede:
In the latest follow-up to your September 20, 1976, request,
attached are rough notes summarizing Mr. Charles R. Jonas'
visit with us on September 24, 1976.
Please note that the next action is for Mr. Jonas to send
us more technical information on Mr. Besser's process, to
which Mr. Petzrick (Office of Commercialization) and
Mr. Ward (Office of Solar Energy) have agreed to informally
respond.
Sincerely,
In Glenn K. Ellis
Office of Energy-Related
Inventions Program
Attachments
AMERICAN REVOLUTION INFORMATION
1776-1976
@
7 Oct 1976
Mr. Glenn Schleede
THE WHITE HOUSE
I regret the delay in responding. As you note from the attached, I prepared
an informal response at the time of Mr. Jonas visit, but, for some unknown
reason here, it was never sent.
Paul Petzrick, Ofc of Commercialization, advises today that we are presently
awaiting the substantive technical information we will need to evaluate
Mr. Besset's process. Mr. Loftin, Mr. Besser, and Mr. Jonas have been
so informed by Petzrick. The material received earlier from the Congressman's
office, according to Petzrick, was not substantial.
Again, I am sorry for the delay.
G Glenn (376-4119) Ellis Ell.
LOWENS & DEVELOPMENT NOIAN VALINISTR
UNITED STATES
ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20545
USA
Memorandum for the Record
MEETING WITH MR. CHARLES R. JONAS
September 24, 1976 - Mr. Jonas called at approximately 11:30 a.m.
seeking additional information in response to his interest in helping
his client, Mr. Charles S. Besser, in the development of a process
for generating methane gas from animal wastes. I identified the
three specific potential areas of 1) R&D, Roscoe Ward in SED;
2) Demonstration, George Rial, AFE; and 3) Commercialization, Paul
Petzrick in the Office of Commercialization. I had previously arranged
for Petzrick to meet with Jonas, so I suggested that Jonas meet with
me at ERDA since he was in the vicinity.
During our meeting, I gave Mr. Jonas the additional background infor-
mation I had gathered and several "guides" for preparing proposals
which he requested. I also expressed Richard Sutz' regrets at not
having been able to meet with him, since he had been called to a
meeting unexpectedly. We then met at Petzrick's office with Dick
Hertzberg and Petzrick for the better part of an hour.
In summary, the potential of the process depends entirely upon its
economic feasibility, since the technology is well known, and the
economic feasibility could not be assessed since Mr. Jonas had few
technical details. It appeared also that any potential for it would
logically fall into Roscoe Ward's area, since the process is still
in the R&D stage. I, therefore, called Ward, whom I had alerted
before Mr. Jonas arrived, who came to the meeting.
Action: It was left that Mr. Jonas would obtain from Besser (and
send to Petzrick) a duplicate of the submission that Besser had
earlier sent Lewett in NBS-OERI. Petzrick would coordinate exam-
ination of the proposal with Ward and INR-OERI, and at the least,
between us, we could possibly suggest some features to reduce the
costs of Besser's proposed demo plant. Jonas mentioned a figure of
$200K that was estimated for a demo plant to take care of the
wastes from a large chicken egg-laying facility, which Petzrick
thought was probably too high. (Several North Carolina businessmen
are interested in Besser's process, but not to the extent of putting
up front money for a demo plant.) Ward indicated that, though he
could not give a formal evaluation, he could advise Besser within
7 - 10 days whether or not his proposal would be of further interest
REVOLUTION to SED.
BICENTENNIAL
Glenn Glen K. Ellis
Elli
AMERICAN
Office of Energy-Related
Inventions Program
1776-1976
TH
376- 376-4309 4509
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 20, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR: THE HONORABLE ROBERT SEAMANS
FROM:
GLENN Glenn SCHLEEDE
SUBJECT:
ATTACHED LETTER
Would you please have someone check
into this one and give me a call today
or tomorrow with the facts on the
situation so that we can respond
to Jack Marsh and Mr. Jonas.
Attachment
Gun Ellist ERDA 376-4119
FORD LIBRARY à SERVICE
5.16445 Gover,
WEINSTEIN, STURGES. OpoM. BIGGER AND JONAS. P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
810 PAXTER STREET CUL-DE-SAC
PAUPICE S.WEINSTON
CHARLOTTE NORTH CAROLINA 28202
704-333.054
W. STUDIES
ODDY
September 9, 1976
CASHI ADDRES
CHARD A. BIGGER. JR.
EASC A.JONAS
JOHN J. DOYLE. JR.
ALLAN W. SINGER
CHARLES R. JONAS
FOBIRT D. HOFFMAN
OF COUNSEL
The Honorable John 0. Marsh
Office of the President
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Jack:
Here is another example of bureaucratic foot-dragging.
You may or may not remember that on the plane from Charlotte
to Washington on May 20, 1975, I was having a visit with the
President and sounded off about the frustrations the business
community. feels in not being able to get any decisions out of
the bureaucracy. He told me to send him some examples through
Don Rumsfeld, and I sent one that would have knocked his eyes
out if the President had ever seen it. But unfortunately it
got lost being shuffled about in the FEA and nothing, absolutely
nothing, ever happened as a result of the example being sent
forward.
Now I have another one and am taking the liberty of recitin
it to you in the hope that you might be willing to put it in the
hands of someone at the White House who may be instrumental in
getting us a decision.
There is a man in Charlotte named Charles S. Besser, who
invented the famous Besser furnace. He sold more than a million
dollars worth of these furnaces until he went broke because he
contracted to supply a 200 or 300 hundred house development with
furnaces at a price less than it cost him to manufacture them,
due to steep and unforeseen increases in the cost of labor and
materials after he signed the contract. He has now invented, and
The Honorable John O. Marsh
September 9, 1976
Page Two
has an application for a patent pending, a continuous system for
producing methane gas. He has erected a small pilot plant in his
backyard, and I personally have witnessed his conversion of human
waste into methane gas which he uses to light and heat his home,
and the by-product from which is liquid fertilizer from which he
has managed to extract the odor. He has also constructed a
laboratory in his garage which he has used to demonstrate his
ability to produce gas from chicken and COW manure. Various people
have witnessed his demonstrations and all with whom I have talked
are agreed that he does indeed have a process which in the future
might go a long way toward solving our energy problem. The
literature on this subject indicates that various research organiza
tions in a number of universities around the country are working on
this same idea, although Besser tells me that no one has used the
continuous process he has invented and for which he has a patent
pending.
Besser's present trouble is that he has exhausted all of his
resources in working on this invention, building the pilot plant
and the laboratory. I personally know that he put a second mortgage
on his house and lot to raise the money to build the laboratory
earlier this year. He did that because he had a real good prospect
of making a deal with a chicken producer in which he would get rid
of the manure and at the same time produce enough gas to meet his
requirements at his plant. The prospect of that deal fell through
simply because the chicken producer was not willing to put up the
perhaps $100,000 it would cost to build a plant of a size sufficien
to take care of his needs; but he told Mr. Besser that if he could
obtain a grant to finance the construction of a commercial-type pil
plant in which he could demonstrate the economic feasibility of his
process, this man not only would contract to have him install a sys
at his place, but could assure Besser that he would have calls to
install similar plants all over the United States.
Now I lead up to the purpose in writing you. Mr. Besser has
been trying since early May to have the Office of Energy-Related
Inventions in the National Bureau of Standards, U. S. Department of
Commerce, make an evaluation of his process. Congressman Jim Marti
has written Mr. George P. Lewett, Chief of that office, any number
of times urging him to proceed with the evaluation and all Mr. Mart
has received from Mr. Lewett is that the materials submitted by Mr.
Besser will be "considered in evaluating
invention".
I
myself
The Honorable John 0. Marsh
September 9, 1976
Page Three
wrote Mr. Lewett on June 23 a three-page letter in which I outlined
what Mr. Besser has done, and strongly urged Mr. Lewett to send a
representative to Charlotte to take a look on the grounds at the
process. I informed them that he could come from Washington to
Charlotte in an hour and a quarter, and that we would meet the plane
and take his representative out for a demonstration and put him back
on the plane, and he would be back in Washington before the end of
the day. I gave him my telephone number and Mr. Besser's number and
requested him to inform either of us if he would send someone here t
witness a demonstration. That letter was dated June 23, 1976, and t
date I have not had any answer to it.
Desperate for some decision on his application for a research
or demonstration grant, Mr. Besser lost heart over the inability of
Congressman Martin or me to get any decision out of Mr. Lewett so ir
early July, he wrote Senator Ted Kennedy, and explained what he had
developed and solicited his help. Senator Kennedy replied quite
promptly and informed Mr. Besser that he had inquired at the Office
of Energy-Related Inventions which is evaluating the feasibility of
his invention for ERDA, and had been informed that a reevaluation
would be initiated within two weeks and should be completed by the
middle of September. He rèquested Mr. Besser to communicate with
him again if by the middle of September he had not received the
results of the evaluation apparently going on in the Office of ERI.
Mr. Besser has also called my attention to a recent statement
by Senator Gaylord Nelson pointing out the importance of moving
vigorously in this field as an anti-pollution and energy-producing
measure. There ought to be someone in the Administration intereste
enough in the possibilities involved in this process to get these
people in the Office of Energy-Related Inventions at the Bureau of
Standards off of dead center so that Besser can see the results of
their evaluation. I honestly cannot understand why it would take
five or six months to do this or why Mr. Lewett would ignore my
letter and the suggestion that he send someone here to take a view
of what Besser has done. The literature on this subject is unanimo
in support of this program, as previously stated; and in my judgmen
the creation of gas from human and other wastes is going to be one
of the waves of the future. I would like to see this Administratio
The Honorable John 0. Marsh
September 9, 1976
Page Four
get some credit for inaugurating or stimulating this effort. The
following quotation is from a recent issue of Intelligence Digest:
"Hong Kong has begun to export solid human waste to
China where it is being used for fertilizer and to
produce methane gas for lighting homes."
If they can do this in China, why don't we try it in the United
States, particularly since we are rapidly running out of natural
gas? This is especially important if that professor of agricultural
engineering at Iowa State University was correct when he recently
stated that "For every year we burn natural gas as a fuel, we lose
16 years' supply of gas as a raw material.'
I became interested in this matter when Mr. Besser came to
me with a request that I see if I couldn't help expedite his effort:
to obtain a grant from the Federal Government to continue his
experimentation and build a pilot plant from which he can demonstrat
the economic feasibility of his process. So far I have gotten nowh
not even a reply to a letter as above stated, and so far Congressmar
Martin has failed in his efforts to get a decision, and as a last
resort I am appealing to you to see if someone at the White House
will not demonstrate sufficient interest in this matter to give a
helping hand.
Yours sincerely,
Charles R. Jonas
FORD LIBRARY is GERALD
CRJ/jg
CC: Leach
Schleede
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
f
September 13, 1976
276
7.32
MEMORANDUM TO: JIM CANNON
FROM:
Jim, attached is a selt-explanatory letter from
former Congressman Charles Jonas.
JACK June MARCH
Anything you can do would be appreciated.
jain.
I'd appreciate your
personal review 8 this
Thanks.
you
01
CC: Leach
Schleede
September 13, 1976
" a a 1976 AM "> 32
Dear Charles:
Many thanks for your letter of
September 9 concerning the numerous
problems that Charles Besser has en-
countered with regard to his invention.
I an taking the liberty of forwarding
your letter to appropriate people here
at the White House. I certainly hope
our efforts prove fruitful. You should
be receiving further word on this matter
in the very near future.
With warmest personal regards, I
remain,
Sincerely,
John 0. Marsh, Jr.
Counsellor to the President
The Nonorable Charles R. Jonas
Weinstein, Sturges, Odom,
Bigger and Jonas
Attorneys at Law
810 Baxter Street Cul-de-Sac
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
cb
CC: JCannon
WEINSTEIN, STURGES, ODOM. BIGGER AND JONAS, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
810 BAXTER STREET CUL-DE-SAC
MAURICE A.WEINSTEIN
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28202
704-333-0511
WILLIAM W. STURGES
T. LAFONTINE ODOM
RICHARD A. BIGGER, JR.
September 9, 1976
CABLE ADDRESS:
"CHARLEX"
ERIC A.JONAS
JOHN J. DOYLE, JR.
ALLAN W. SINGER
CHARLES R. JONAS
ROBERT D. HOFFMAN
OF COUNSEL
The Honorable John O. Marsh
Office of the President
LIBRARY
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Jack:
Here is another example of bureaucratic foot-dragging.
You may or may not remember that on the plane from Charlotte
to Washington on May 20, 1975, I was having a visit with the
President and sounded off about the frustrations the business
community feels in not being able to get any decisions out of
the bureaucracy. He told me to send him some examples through
Don Rumsfeld, and I sent one that would have knocked his eyes
out if the President had ever seen it. But unfortunately it
got lost being shuffled about in the FEA and nothing, absolutely
nothing, ever happened as a result of the example being sent
forward.
Now I have another one and am taking the liberty of reciting
it to you in the hope that you might be willing to put it in the
hands of someone at the White House who may be instrumental in
getting us a decision.
There is a man in Charlotte named Charles S. Besser, who
invented the famous Besser furnace. He sold more than a million
dollars worth of these furnaces until he went broke because he
contracted to supply a 200 or 300 hundred house development with
furnaces at a price less than it cost him to manufacture them,
due to steep and unforeseen increases in the cost of labor and
materials after he signed the contract. He has now invented, and
The Honorable John O. Marsh
September 9, 1976
Page Two
has an application for a patent pending, a continuous system for
producing methane gas. He has erected a small pilot plant in his
backyard, and I personally have witnessed his conversion of human
waste into methane gas which he uses to light and heat his home,
and the by-product from which is liquid fertilizer from which he
has managed to extract the odor. He has also constructed a
laboratory in his garage which he has used to demonstrate his
ability to produce gas from chicken and COW manure. Various people
have witnessed his demonstrations and all with whom I have talked
are agreed that he does indeed have a process which in the future
might go a long way toward solving our energy problem. The
literature on this subject indicates that various research organiza-
tions in a number of universities around the country are working on
this same idea, although Besser tells me that no one has used the
continuous process he has invented and for which he has a patent
pending.
Besser's present trouble is that he has exhausted all of his
resources in working on this invention, building the pilot plant
and the laboratory. I personally know that he put a second mortgage
on his house and lot to raise the money to build the laboratory
earlier this year. He did that because he had a real good prospect
of making a deal with a chicken producer in which he would get rid
of the manure and at the same time produce enough gas to meet his
requirements at his plant. The prospect of that deal fell through
simply because the chicken producer was not willing to put up the
perhaps $100,000 it would cost to build a plant of a size sufficient
to take care of his needs; but he told Mr. Besser that if he could
obtain a grant to finance the construction of a commercial-type pilot
plant in which he could demonstrate the economic feasibility of his
process, this man not only would contract to have him install a syste
at his place, but could assure Besser that he would have calls to
install similar plants all over the United States.
Now I lead up to the purpose in writing you. Mr. Besser has
been trying since early May to have the Office of Energy-Related
Inventions in the National Bureau of Standards, U. S. Department of
Commerce, make an evaluation of his process. Congressman Jim Martin
has written Mr. George P. Lewett, Chief of that office, any number
of times urging him to proceed with the evaluation and all Mr. Martir
has received from Mr. Lewett is that the materials submitted by Mr.
Besser will be "considered in evaluating
invention". I myself
The Honorable John O. Marsh
September 9, 1976
Page Three
wrote Mr. Lewett on June 23 a three-page letter in which I outlined
what Mr. Besser has done, and strongly urged Mr. Lewett to send a
representative to Charlotte to take a look on the grounds at the
process. I informed them that he could come from Washington to
Charlotte in an hour and a quarter, and that we would meet the plane
and take his representative out for a demonstration and put him back
on the plane, and he would be back in Washington before the end of
the day. I gave him my telephone number and Mr. Besser's number and
requested him to inform either of us if he would send someone here tc
witness a demonstration. That letter was dated June 23, 1976, and to
date I have not had any answer to it.
Desperate for some decision on his application for a research
or demonstration grant, Mr. Besser lost heart over the inability of
Congressman Martin or me to get any decision out of Mr. Lewett so in
early July, he wrote Senator Ted Kennedy, and explained what he had
developed and solicited his help. Senator Kennedy replied quite
promptly and informed Mr. Besser that he had inquired at the Office
of Energy-Related Inventions which is evaluating the feasibility of
his invention for ERDA, and had been informed that a reevaluation
would be initiated within two weeks and should be completed by the
middle of September. He requested Mr. Besser to communicate with
him again if by the middle of September he had not received the
results of the evaluation apparently going on in the Office of ERI.
Mr. Besser has also called my attention to a recent statement
by Senator Gaylord Nelson pointing out the importance of moving
vigorously in this field as an anti-pollution and energy-producing
measure. There ought to be someone in the Administration interested
enough in the possibilities involved in this process to get these
people in the Office of Energy-Related Inventions at the Bureau of
Standards off of dead center so that Besser can see the results of
their evaluation. I honestly cannot understand why it would take
five or six months to do this or why Mr. Lewett would ignore my
letter and the suggestion that he send someone here to take a view
of what Besser has done. The literature on this subject is unanimous
in support of this program, as previously stated; and in my judgment
the creation of gas from human and other wastes is going to be one
of the waves of the future. I would like to see this Administration
The Honorable John 0. Marsh
September 9, 1976
Page Four
get some credit for inaugurating or stimulating this effort. The
following quotation is from a recent issue of Intelligence Digest:
"Hong Kong has begun to export solid human waste to
China where it is being used for fertilizer and to
produce methane gas for lighting homes."
If they can do this in China, why don't we try it in the United
States, particularly since we are rapidly running out of natural
gas? This is especially important if that professor of agricultural
engineering at Iowa State University was correct when he recently
stated that "For every year we burn natural gas as a fuel, we lose
16 years' supply of gas as a raw material."
I became interested in this matter when Mr. Besser came to
me with a request that I see if I couldn't help expedite his efforts
to obtain a grant from the Federal Government to continue his
experimentation and build a pilot plant from which he can demonstrate
the economic feasibility of his process. So far I have gotten nowhe:
not even a reply to a letter as above stated, and so far Congressman
Martin has failed in his efforts to get a decision, and as a last
resort I am appealing to you to see if someone at the White House
will not demonstrate sufficient interest in this matter to give a
helping hand.
Yours sincerely,
FORD
Charles R. Jonas
LIBRARY
CRJ/jg
ACTION
DOMESTIC COUNCIL
FROM:
Schleede
1976 OCT 16 PM 5 45
SUBJECT:
Draft Presidential memo to heads of departments
and agencies on the Federal Energy Management
Program (FEMP)
Date: 10/16/76
COMMENTS:
Quern: We should staff this out quickly
after you have had a chance to
review it. It looks good to me.
DECISION:
O.K. to staff
Other
to ourB B
GERALD F. LIBRARY FORD
who Due
?
2
ACTION:
Date:
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)
Attached for your consideration is a proposed memorandum
to Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies which:
Announces your Federal energy conservation goal for
FY 1977 of using no more energy than was actually
used during FY 1975;
Signals your continuing interest in the Federal Energy
Management Program (FEMP) ;
Notifies agencies that FEA has been assigned lead
responsibility for coordinating this effort.
The FEMP was started in July 1973 with the setting of a
target for energy conservation within the Executive Branch,
quarterly reporting by agencies, and coordination and
reporting of results by FEA.
The agencies have been responsive, particularly the
Department of Defense which is by far the largest energy
user. FEA indicates that energy savings during FY 1976
reached the equivalent of 285,000 barrels of oil per day.
The attached memorandum has been recommended by
Secretary Richardson, Frank Zarb and OMB.
RECOMMENDATION
That you sign the memorandum attached at TAB A.
STATES FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SUBJECT:
Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)
Since 1973, the Executive Branch of the Federal Government has
taken the lead in conserving energy. In fiscal year 1976,
Federal agencies' energy conservation efforts resulted in
savings equivalent to over 285,000 barrels of oil per day.
These impressive results are due to dedicated and serious
efforts to conserve energy. I commend you and your employees
for fine achievement and the example it sets for all Americans.
For FY 1977, I am establishing a Federal energy conservation
goal of using no more energy than was actually used during
FY 1975. I am asking each of you to: (1) establish specific
plans for energy savings during the coming year, and (2) examine
all of your facilities and operations for both short and longer
term energy conservation potential and undertake, within your
existing budgetary levels, cost-effective projects wherever
possible.
I am also directing the Administrators of the Federal Energy
Administration and the General Services Administration to
work with you to establish individual agency targets and to
identify energy conservation projects so as to assure that
overall Executive Branch goals will be achieved. In addition,
the Office of Management and Budget will provide guidance
concerning budgeting procedures for projects and activities
in FY 1979 and beyond.
FORD LIBRARY &
Date: 10/18/76
From the desk of The Administrator
To:
Jim Cannon
1976 OCT 18 PM 3 57
For your information.
Frank
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
Fruch -
you should to
expoud
Tuis Federal Energy Administration Jun
Room 3400
Ext.
6081
Energy
UP-080
(MONDALE)
(BY SARA FRITZ)
DENVER (UPI) DEMOCRATIC VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WALTER
MONDALE SAID TODAY THE FORD ADMINISTRATION HAS NO COHERENT ENERGY
POLICY.
IN AN ADDRESS TO THE WESTERN STATES WATER AND POWER CONSUMERS
CONFERENCE, MONDALE SAID PRESIDENT FORD HAS NOT MADE 8 "SINGLE
STATEMENT ON THIS RANGE DE ISSUES" DURING THE CAMPAIGN.
"THE TRUTH IS THAT THE FORD ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY HAS BEEN ONE
WITHOUT VISION, WITHOUT LEADERSHIP, WITHOUT SENSE OF PURPOSE,' HE
SAID.
MONDALE OUTLINED SPECIFIC STEPS JIMMY CARTER WOULD TAKE TO DEVELOP
ENERGY RESOURCES WHILE PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT AND SAID THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE STATES AS PARTNERS IN
ENERGY DEVELOPMENT.
THE STEPS INCLUDE: HORIZONTIAL DIVESTITURE OF THE MAJOR OIL
COMPANIES; ENACTMENT OF A "MEANINGFUL" LAW REGULATING STRIP MINING;
REORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ENERGY-RELATED FUNCTIONS INTO ONE
CABINET LEVEL AGENCY, AND A SHIFT TOWARD INCREASING COAL PRODUCTION
AS OIL AND GAS SUPPLIES DWINDLE.
MONDALE SAID THE GOVERNMENT MUST BE REORGANIZED BECAUSE 20
SEPARATE AGENCIES NOW DEAL WITH ENERGY MATTERS RESULTING IN NOTHING
BUT "CONFUSION, SQUABBLING, DUPLICATION AND INCONSISTENCY.'
HE SAID HORIZONTAL DIVESTITURE PROHIBITING AN OIL FIRM FROM
OWNING OTHER FORMS OF ENERGY SUCH AS COAL MINES OR NATURAL GAS LINES
-- IS NECESSARY BECAUSE "THE GOVERNMENT HAS GIVEN AWAY, SOLD OR
LEASED, THE NATION'S RESOURCES FOR THE GAIN OF THE MAJOR OIL
COMPANIES. WHEN YOU ANYONE T00 MUCH POWER IN THE ECONOMY. THEY'LL
ABUSE IT."
MONDALE ALSO SAID A DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTATION WOULD "DRAW THE LINE"
WHEN DIL-PRODUCING NATIONS ATTEMPT TO DICTATE PRICES WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES. HE SAID HE BELIEVES IN A FREE MARKET, BUT "WE HAVE A
RIGHT TO CIVILIZE THOSE PRICES."
HE ALSO PROMISED TO ENCOURAGE DISCOVERY OF NEW ENERGY SOURCES,
SUCH AS SOLAR POWER, PUT PRICE CEILINGS ON NEW NATURAL GAS AND
DEVELOP AN IMMEDIATE CONSERVATION PROGRAM USING MASS TRANSIT IN BOTH
RURAL AND URBAN AREAS.
UPI 10-18 - 02:06 PED
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
10/8/8
ACTION
DOMESTIC COUNCIL
FROM:
Schleede
SUBJECT:
Presidential memo to heads of departments &
agencies (FEMP) on Federal Energy Management Program
Date: 10/27/76
COMMENTS:
Per your instruction, this memo was
staffed for comment.
Quern and I recommend approval.
A.
2020 LIBRARY "II
ACTION:
Date:
TEMP
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 28, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON Jun
SUBJECT:
Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)
Attached for your consideration is a proposed memorandum
to Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies which:
Announces your Federal energy conservation goal for
FY 1977 of using no more energy than was actually
used during FY 1975.
Signals your continuing interest in the Federal Energy
Management Program (FEMP).
Notifies agencies that FEA has been assigned lead
responsibility for coordinating this effort.
The FEMP was started in July 1973 with the setting of a
target for energy conservation within the Executive Branch,
quarterly reporting by agencies, and coordination and
reporting of results by FEA.
The agencies have been responsive, particularly the
Department of Defense which is by far the largest energy
user. FEA indicates that energy savings during FY 1976
reached the equivalent of 285,000 barrels of oil per day.
The attached memorandum has been reviewed and concurred in
by Secretary Richardson, Frank Zarb, OMB, Phil Buchen,
Max Friedersdorf, Alan Greenspan, Robert Hartmann,
John Marsh, and William Seidman.
RECOMMENDATION
That you sign the memorandum attached at TAB A.
FURD LIBRARY is GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SUBJECT:
Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)
Since 1973, the Executive Branch of the Federal Government has
taken the lead in conserving energy. In fiscal year 1976,
Federal agencies' energy conservation efforts resulted in
savings equivalent to over 285,000 barrels of oil per day.
These impressive results are due to dedicated and serious
efforts to conserve energy. I commend you and your employees
for fine achievement and the example it sets for all Americans.
For FY 1977, I am establishing a Federal energy conservation
goal of using no more energy than was actually used during
FY 1975. I am asking each of you to: (1) establish specific
plans for energy savings during the coming year, and (2) examine
all of your facilities and operations for both short and longer
term energy conservation potential and undertake, within your
existing budgetary levels, cost-effective projects wherever
possible.
I am also directing the Administrators of the Federal Energy
Administration and the General Services Administration to
work with you to establish individual agency targets and to
identify energy conservation projects so as to assure that
overall Executive Branch goals will be achieved. In addition,
the Office of Management and Budget will provide guidance
concerning budgeting procedures for projects and activities
in FY 1979 and beyond.
ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, CONN., CHAIRMAN
JOHN L. MC CLELLAN, ARK.
CHARLES H. PERCY, ILL.
HENRY M. JACKSON, WASH.
JACOB K. JAVITS, N.Y.
LOMUND S. MUSKIE, MAINE
Energy
WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., DEL.
LEE METCALF, MONT.
BILL BROCK, TENN.
JAMES B. ALLEN, ALA.
LOWELL P. WEICKER, JR., CONN.
LAWTON CHILES, FLA.
SAM NUNN, GA.
United States Senate
JOHN GLENN, OHIO
RICHARD A. WEGMAN
CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
976 23 02
October 27, 1976
Mr. James Cannon
Director, The Domestic Council
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
File
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Cannon:
I am writing to request that you respond in writing to the
questions asked you by my Legislative Assistant, Len Bickwit in his
letter to you of October 1. I would appreciate receiving your
answer no later than the close of business on October 29.
It is a disappointment to me that I have to address these
questions to you personally when they were previously raised by
my staff in my absence. If our objective is to promote cooperation
between our respective branches of government, surely that purpose
was not served by your reluctance to cooperate with my staff.
It is also disappointing to read certain statements attributed
to you which will inevitably lead to inferences which are misleading.
In the attached article from the Columbus Dispatch you are quoted
as saying "Had the junior Senator from Ohio stayed there (in the
Senate) and worked on the energy legislation and it had passed,
we could have a full year to proceed." While that quote--assuming
it was accurately reported--does not specifically so state, it
suggests (1) that serious damage has been done the Portsmouth
project by recent Senate action and (2) that my presence in the
Senate could have avoided that result.
Quite aside from the fact that my scheduling and decisions
on where I concentrate my efforts at any particular time are not
your responsibility to pass judgment on, both you and I know
that propositions (1) and (2) above are not the case. I therefore
wish you would avoid making statements--again assuming you have
done so--that suggest that they are.
Sincerely,
July Glenn Glem
States Senator
10280 4
DISPATCH
COLUMBUS, 0.
P.M. CIRC. 222,350
369
OCT-12-76
Piketon Project Funds To Run Out
By Ge *ge Embrey
the continuing resolution expires
It now will be up to the administra-
"Had the junior senator from Ohio
Chief, Dispote 'ashington Bureau
March 31.
tion to go back to the new Congress
stayed there (in the Senate) and
WASHINGTON A top White
Also, the legislation Ford requested
after it gets back to work Jan, 4 to get
worked on the energy legislation and it
House official said nesday that con-
for ERDA and the separate nuclear
more money authorized not only for
had passed, we could have a full year to
gressional funding fy. the proposed
fuel assurance bill would have autho-
the Piketon factory expansion but for
proceed," Cannon said.
$2.7 billion "add-on" 10 the Piketon,
rized a full year of work on the first
the other new projects in the $6 billion
CANNON BRUSHED aside com-
Ohio, atomic energy fa. tory runs out
phase of the Piketon factor and $255
ERDA bill.
plaints from Glenn's staff that he
March 31, 1977, and ha. a spending
million.
ceiling of $50 million.
Solar energy, synthetic fuels and
would not personally respond to their
THUS, INSTEAD of having only $50
James Cannon, executi e director
other ERDA projects are stalled, and
telephone calls. Cannon's staff mem-
million until March 31, the Ford
of the White House domes council,
funded only temporarily.
bers took the calls, he said.
administration would have had all of it,
spoke out after aides to U.S. Sen. John
and Harsha and Glenn said they felt
COME MARCH 31, if there is not
"I will be glad to talk to the senator
H. Glenn, D-Ohio, tried to shit. possible
necessary to get the giant project
further congressional action, the Pike-
(Glenn) when he gets back from
blame for a delay on the mammoth,
under way.
ton project must stop, Cannon said.
China," Cannon said.
job-rich project to President Ford.
CANNON SAID Ford meant exactly
what he said in the debate last
Wednesday in San Francisco — that his
administration is fully committed to
the $2.7 billion expansion of the
Piketon factory and its production of
fuel for electric-generating atomic
energy plants.
Cannon had criticized Glenn for
blocking Senate action on atomic
energy legislation and then going off
on a trip to the Peoples Republic of
GERALD
R.
China while the Senate still had time to
act on the legislation.
FORD
The legislation, including the an-
nual authorization bill for the budget
of the agency that runs the Piketon
LIBRARY
factory, the U.S. Energy and Research
Administration (ERDA), was not enact-
ed before Congress recessed for the
year.
U.S. REP. William H. Harsha, R-
Portsmouth, and aides to Glenn report-
ed last week that the resolution
Congress passed will let ERDA contin-
ue spending its $6 billion appropria-
tions at the 1977 budget year level
temporarily, at least.
But Cannon explained Tuesday that
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 11, 1976
File
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
JAMES CONNOR
FROM:
GLENN Jimi SCHLEEDE
SUBJECT:
Ohio Newspapers Concerning Portsmouth
Attached are the background materials related to the
questions raised by the two Ohio newspapers concerning
Portsmouth.
TAB I are the questions raised and the documents being
cited.
TAB II is the proposed response.
The immediate questions I have are:
Can we go further than the proposed response in terms of a
commitment to proceed with Portsmouth?
Would a call to the reporters from one of you be better
than one from me?
Attachment.
NFA
ERDA authorid
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
directed
TAB I
QUESTIONS RAISED BY MR. DOUGLAS LOWENSTEIN, DAYTON OHIO NEWS
Senator Glenn apparently has contacted reporters from
the Cox Newspaper chain and:
-- Supplied them with a copy of Mr. Beckwit's letter of
October 1, 1976 to Jim Cannon with an enclosed article
from The Dispatch (TAB A)
-- Indicated that the President's statement about Portsmouth
during the October 6, 1976/debate was in conflict
with (a) the President's July 29, 1976/letter to
Congressman Harsha and (b) JMC quote -- because the
statement during the debates was not commissioned on
passage of the NFAA whereas the two references cited
were so conditioned.
Mr. Lowenstein would like answers to the following
questions:
Is it correct to say that the Administration, prior to
the October 6 debate, pegged the expansion of Portsmouth
(passage of NFAA) ?
-- Is the Administration thinking about asking for recision
of 1977 appropriations ($178.8 million) since the NFAA
did not pass?
-- Is the President committed to spend the $2.7 billion
requested for expansion of the add-on for the
Portsmouth plant?
TAB A
JOHN GLENN
COMMITTEES:
OHIO
INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
United States Senate
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
October 1, 1976
Mr. James Cannon
Director, The Domestic Council
The White House
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Cannon:
I understand that you are extremely busy at this time,
but it has been more than a week since I began trying to
reach you on a matter of considerable importance to this
office. On Monday of this week I sent a copy of the enclosed
article to Glen Schleede and asked him to get back to me on
two questions relating to a one-sentence quote in the article.
You were quoted as stating, "Without Congress passing this
legislation in this session, this just isn't going to proceed. "
In the context of the article it is clear that "this legislation"
refers to the proposed Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act and that "this"
in the second clause of the quote refers to the enrichment plant
in Piketon, Ohio.
My two questions are these : 1) Is the quote accurate; and
2) If so, what does it mean in view of the fact that the proposed
ERDA Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 1977 contains $230 million
for the plant and the already-passed Public Works Appropriation
Bill for Fiscal Year 1977 contains $178 million?
Mr. Schleede tells me that you simply have not been able to
focus on these questions because of your schedule. In light of
our great interest in the matter and the straightforwardness of
the questions, however, I sincerely hope you will be able to do
SO before the end of the day.
Best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Provid Bichit,
Leonard Bickwit, Jr.
Chief Legislative Assistant
LB:mh
CC: Glen Schleede
Atomic Plant For Piketon
Threatened By Senators
GLENN'S TOP legislative aide, Len
By George Embrey
Beckwit, has assurred reporters that
Chief, Disporch Washington Bureow
other legislation already approved by
Congress or certain of being enacted
WASHINGTON - President Ford's
would clear the first $255 million Ford
op domestic adviser said Saturday the
requested for preliminary work on the
roposed $2.7 billion addition to the
Piketon plant.
iketon, Ohio, atomic energy factory
Cannon disputes the Glenn-Beckwit
just isn't going to proceed" without a
argument. Cannon said Saturday that
alled piece of legislation.
without congressional action on the
Sen. John Glenn, D-Ohio, is the
now stalled Nuclear Fuel Assurance
ader in blocking action in the Senate
Act, would be jeoparidized.
the proposed legislation, the Nu-
'Without Congress passing this
eaur Fuel Assurance Act of 1976:
legislation in this session, this just isn't
JAMES CANNON, executive direc-
going to proceed," Cannon said.
"THERE ARE just too many people
tor of the White House Domestic
who want to block any development of
FORD
Council, told The Dispatch he had
new facilities to provide nuclear fuel,"
&
passed on his warning about the
Cannon said.
proposed $2.7 billion project to Gov.
The Piketon plant addition would
James A. Rhodes.
be the first new facility in the
government's attempt to assure the
GERALD
Ford has made good on his pledge in
United States of an ample supply. of
Columbus before the June 8 Ohio
nucleur fuel or nuclear power plants to
primary election to push for the
generate electricity and provide other
massive project north of Portsmouth.
energy for the foreseeable future.
U.S. Rep. William H. Harsha, R-
Portsmouth, has predicted the project
Cannon explained that unless the
at the U. S. atomic plant at Piketon
legislation is passed before Congress
would employ more than 5,000 work-
quits Oct. 2, the President would have
to start all over again with the new
Congress toward getting the necessary
ers during the construction phase over
legislation.
a number of years.
SENATE MAJORITY leader Mike
CANNON SAID that a strong ally of
Mansfield, D-Montana, tried to get
the Ford administration and will not
Glenn and other objectors to the
be around to help next year. Sen. John
legislation to agree to a compromise
Pastore, D-Rhode Island, chairman of
this week to allow eight hours of
the Joint Senate-House Atomic Energy
debate in the heavily loaded Senate
Committee, has pushed for the pro-
schedule before Congress adjourns
posed Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act, but
he is retiring.
Oct. 2
Cannon said he is sure President
Glenn is the leader of a dozen
Ford will win the election Nov. 2 and
continue to press for the Piketon
senators who refused Mansfield's com-
addition. But Cannon said Democratic
promise. Glenn says he is not con-
candidate Jimmy Carter, whom Glenn
vinced the legislation has enough
is supporting. has questioned whether
safeguards to prevent Arabs from
the U.S. should proceed with develop-
obtaining nuclear weapons material.
ing nuclear fuel in enrichment facili-
After succeeding in blocking senate
ties such as the Piketon addition.
action on the legislation, Glenn depart-
Cannon said that last week a major
ed with Mansfield for a visit to the
French magazine carried a story that
People's Republic of China. Glenn has
French government officials viewed
been criticized by U.S. Rep. Delbert T.
the opposition to United States devel-
Latta, R-Bowling Green, for taking
opment of new nuclear fuel manufac-
part in a "junket" which will keep him
turing facilities to be such that France
out of the country for the rest of this
should produce nuclear fuel for world
year's Congress.
markets.
TAB B
THE MODERATOR: President Ford?
THE PRESIDENT: Governor Carter brags about
the unemployment during Democratic Administrations
and condemns the unemployment at the present time. I
must remind him that we are at peace and during the period
that he brags about unemployment being low, the United
States was at war.
Let me correct one other comment that Governor
Carter has made. I have recommended to the Congress that
we develop the uranium enrichment plant at Portsmouth,
Ohio, which is a publicly-owned U.S. Government facility,
and have indicated that the private program which would
follow on in Alabama is one that may or may not be
constructed, but I am committed to the one at Portsmouth,
Ohio.
The Governor also talks about morality in
foreign policy. The foreign policy of the United
States meets the highest standards of morality. What is
more moral than peace, and the United States is at
peace today. What is more moral in foreign policy than
for the Administration to take the lead in the World
Food Conference in Rome in 1974, when the United States
committed six million metric tons of food, over 60 percent
of the food committed for the disadvantaged and under-
developed nations of the world?
The Ford Administration wants to eradicate
hunger and disease in our underdeveloped countries
throughout the world. What is more moral than for the
United States under the Ford Administration to take
FORD VIBRARY
the lead in Southern Africa, in the Middle East? Those
are initiatives in foreign policy which are of the
highest moral standards, and that is indicative of
the foreign policy of this country.
THE MODERATOR: Mr. Frankel, a question for
President Ford.
MR. FRANKEL: Mr. President, can we stick
with morality? For a lot of people it seems to cover a
bunch of sins.
Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kissinger used to tell us
that instead of morality we had to worry in the world
about living with and letting live all kinds of Govern-
ments that we really didn't like -- North and South
Korean dictators, Chilean facists, Chinese Communists,
Iranian emperors and so on.
TAB C
July 29, 1976
Dear Bill:
I understand that you have a concern about our
intentions to build the enrichment facility add-on
at Portsmouth, Ohio. I can assure you that in the
context of the Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act, it is
our firm intention, subject, of course, to the
completion of the required environmental procedures,
to complete that plant.
Moreover, the Portsmouth plant does not conflict
with other additions to our enrichment capacity
and our progress on it will not depend upon
completion of any other facilities.
I hope that these comments give you the assurances
that you require.
Sincerely,
GERALD R. FORD
The Honorable William H. Harsha
U. S. House of Representatives
BERADO, FORD
Washington, D. C*20515
GRF:JEC/ec
Copy
TAB II
PROPOSED RESPONSE
The President's intention of proceeding with an add-on
to the Portsmouth enrichment facility and, subject to
environmental requirements to complete that plant, is
reflected in the following series of actions:
1. The NFAA submitted to the Congress on June 26, 1975,
by the President, included a section which would have
authorized continued work on construction, planning
and design for the expansion of government-owned
enrichment facilities.
2. On May 5, 1976, the President requested approval of
$12.6 million for continuation of design work for the
Portsmouth add-on during the remainder of FY 1976
and the Transition Quarter.
3. On May 26, 1976, the President announced that he would
accept and encourage passage of a revised NFAA which
NFAA
had been reported unanimously by the Joint Committee
on Atomic Energy on May 14, 1976. Section 4 of that
bill authorized and directed ERDA to initiate construction
planning and design, and construction and operation of
an add-on to an existing government-owned uranium
enrichment facility and the report accompanying the
bill made clear to the facility at Portsmouth was the
wordbon
one to be expanded.
4. On June 4, 1976, the President requested $178.8 million
for FY 1977 to proceed with design, planning and
procurement of long lead-time construction for the
Portsmouth plant.
5. On July 12, 1976, the President signed the Public Works
Appropriations Bill appropriating the $178.8 million for
Portsmouth work.
On September 3, 1976, ERDA Deputy Adminustrator Fri, in
responding to questions posed by Senator Glenn concerning
the need for additional enrichment capacity, pointed out
that there was no conflict between the desire to proceed
with privately-owned uranium enrichment capacity and the
Portsmouth add-on plant because "the add-on enrichment plant
at Portsmouth, Ohio will be used to fulfill existing ERDA
contacts in the most economically, efficient manner and to
conserve uranium resources. "
-2-
The current status of the authorization for proceeding with
the Portsmouth plant is that the continuing resolution* passed
by the Congress on October 1, 1976, authorized ERDA to
continue work on the Portsmouth plant through March 31,
1977 at the rate of spending provided for in 1977 Appropriation
Acts ($178.8 million for all of FY 1977).
In response to the specific questions posed by Mr. Lowenstein:
-- The President's statement during the October 6, 1976
debates is consistent with the actions the President
has already taken to proceed with the Portsmouth plant.
-- The Administration has no intention of asking for a
recision of the $178.8 million in FY 1977 appropriations.
-- Funding requirements for FY 1978 for work on the Portsmouth
add-on are now being considered as part of the President's
FY 1978 budget.
-- Subject to ERDA's completion of the requested environ-
mental reviews, the President is committed to the
completion of the add-on facility at Portsmouth, Ohio.
*
H.R. Resolution 1105, not yet signed. Last day for action
October 18.
NFAA would lew curturns
work $255 ya w/o but M.
expected 1950 my 3/31/79
tile
ACTION
JMC REQUEST
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
K.
October 29, 1976
put
Information"
MEMORANDUM FOR: JIM CANNON
FROM:
GEORGE W. HUMPHREYS
SUBJECT:
Bonneville Power Administration/
Alumax Aluminum Plant - Oregon
Attached is a suggested memo from you to the President
advising him of the actions you took concerning the
Bonneville Power Administration issue in Oregon.
FORD LIBRARY & SERVIC area
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
INFORMATION
October 28, 1976
MEMORANDUM TO:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JIM CANNON Jine
Bonneville Power Administration/
Alumax Aluminum Plant - Oregon
Our people in Oregon advise that it is very important
for you to move positively to resolve problems surrounding
delays in building an aluminum plant in Umatilla County,
Oregon.
In 1966, the Bonneville Power Administration agreed
contractually to provide power to Alumax for a new plant
to be constructed in Astoria, Oregon. The contract was
later replaced in 1975 to accomodate the movement of the
proposed site inland to Umatilla County.
The Port of Astoria, et al, brought suit to block the
move, alleging that the contract was invalid because no
environmental impact statement had been prepared. The
U.S. District Court ruled that the contract was valid, but
unenforceable until the EIS was prepared. The court
ordered both a site-specific EIS and a programmatic EIS
covering the BPA's role in supplying power throughout its
service area.
The Justice Department appealed the decision, but BPA
began the EIS process, estimated to cost $4 million.
Completion of the EIS is expected by the fall of 1977. The
appeal is not expected to be heard for six months, with a
decision possibly two years away.
Senator Dole is scheduled to be in Oregon today, October 28,
and we expect him to be asked about this issue.
FORD LIBRARY is
-2-
The Senator has been informed that you have instructed
Secretary Kleppe to review the entire issue and to take
whatever appropriate steps are required to speed up the
EIS process and to eliminate any other procedural
impediments so that the plant construction can begin as
soon as possible.
Tom agrees with this approach and has been informed of
some actions that he can take that will reduce the delay
time.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
INFORMATION
October 28, 1976
MEMORANDUM TO:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON Jin
SUBJECT:
Bonneville Power Administration/
Alumax Aluminum Plant - Oregon
Our people in Oregon advise that it is very important
for you to move positively to resolve problems surrounding
delays in building an aluminum plant in Umatilla County,
Oregon.
In 1966, the Bonneville Power Administration agreed
contractually to provide power to Alumax for a new plant
to be constructed in Astoria, Oregon. The contract was
later replaced in 1975 to accomodate the movement of the
proposed site inland to Umatilla County.
The Port of Astoria, et al, brought suit to block the
move, alleging that the contract was invalid because no
environmental impact statement had been prepared. The
U.S. District Court ruled that the contract was valid, but
unenforceable until the EIS was prepared. The court
ordered both a site-specific EIS and a programmatic EIS
covering the BPA's role in supplying power throughout its
service area.
The Justice Department appealed the decision, but BPA
began the EIS process, estimated to cost $4 million.
Completion of the EIS is expected by the fall of 1977. The
appeal is not expected to be heard for six months, with a
decision possibly two years away.
Senator Dole is scheduled to be in Oregon today, October 28,
and we expect him to be asked about this issue.
JRD
LIBRARY
-2-
The Senator has been informed that you have instructed
Secretary Kleppe to review the entire issue and to take
whatever appropriate steps are required to speed up the
EIS process and to eliminate any other procedural
impediments so that the plant construction can begin as
soon as possible.
Tom agrees with this approach and has been informed of
some actions that he can take that will reduce the delay
time.
CC: Schleede
Eneyg
FEDERAL
ENERGY
FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20461
ADMINISTRATION
October 29, 1976
976 OUT OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO THE ENERGY RESOURCES COUNCIL
FROM:
FRANK ZARB, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
z
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY OF MINUTES, ERC MEETING,
OCTOBER 28, 1976
1. Mid-Term Technologies Update
ERDA briefed the Council on the potential mid-term
(1985-2000) impacts of energy technology. Expansion
of existing sources, the development of new sources
and conservation by increasing the efficiency of
fuel use were addressed. ERDA also outlined its
level of funding and its approach to current and
future research and development. Council discussion
focused on the need for increased reliance on coal,
oil and gas during the 1985-2000 period if alter-
native technologies are unsuccessful, the need for
stimulating public awareness of energy issues, the
uncertainties in underwriting the massive capital
requirements of the new technologies, and the
relative emphasis given to new technologies.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
2. Energy Program Update
FEA outlined the progress made by the Administration
and the 94th Congress in implementing the President's
energy program. There were many more conservation
measures while on the supply side Congress has made
little progress. FEA estimated that if fully imple-
mented, the currently authorized portions of the
President's program would hold oil imports to about 7
million barrels per day by 1985; imports could be
reduced to about 4 million barrels per day if the
Congress authorizes the remainder of the program.
Deregulation of natural gas prices was singled out as
the action most needed to accomplish the reduced oil
import objectives.
110/04