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
7337813
label
Press Conference of Frank Zarb, Administrator, Federal Energy Administration; Alan Greenspan, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers; and Robert Montgomery, Jr., General Counsel, Federal Energy Administration
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
7337813
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Press Conference of Frank Zarb, Administrator, Federal Energy Administration; Alan Greenspan, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers; and Robert Montgomery, Jr., General Counsel, Federal Energy Administration
citationUrl
collections
White House Press Releases (Ford Administration)
Press Releases
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
7337813
levelOfDescription
item
productionDates
day
23
logicalDate
1975-01-23
month
1
year
1975
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
cead6d69e015364b
ocrText
Digitized from Box 7 of the White House Press Releases at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JANUARY 23, 1975
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
FRANK ZARB
ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION
ALAN GREENSPAN
CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS
AND
ROBERT MONTGOMERY, JR.
GENERAL COUNSEL, FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION
THE BRIEFING ROOM
4:25 P.M. EST
MR. NESSEN: While we are waiting for Frank and
the cameras to get set up, I will tell you a little bit
about the President's meeting with the Governors, although
he probably told you about it himself.
Q
Why did they go so late?
MR. NESSEN: I will tell you that.
The President opened the meeting with the
Governors by telling them why he felt it was important to
begin now on a program to conserve energy. He pointed
out that foreign imports now amount to 38 percent of
American energy use, and by 1977, that will go to 50
percent, that whereas foreign oil cost the United States
$3 billion only five years, ago, it will reach $32 billion
a year in 1977.
He said, "This is intolerable for our- national
security and independence." He said he is going to sign
the proclamation, which he has now done, but he said he
is taking steps to solve what he called the "unique
problems of New England," one, by allocating more domestic
oil to them and, secondly, by changing the fees on.
imported products.
In fact, there will be no increase in the fee at
all this first month of February. He promised to study
other steps to relieve what he called the "unique problems
of the Northeast."
MORE
(OVER)
- 2 -
He also told the Governors that in order to join
this plan of his for energy independence by 1985, they should
concentrate on building more nuclear plants in their areas.
He said, "We must start building and stop canceling nuclear
plants." He said that 30 percent of America's energy must
come from nuclear plants by 1985.
Q
Energy or electricity?
MR. NESSEN: Energy. He said that there needs to
be Outer Continental Shelf drilling, more conversion of
plants in New England to coal and the construction of more
oil refineries in New England.
The President said, "We will bend over backwards
to help you." Then, the various Governors expressed their
views, and in response, the President said, "We have looked
at every option, and they were piled high, and my plan was
the best one we could devise." The President said we were
"at the threshold of a possible disaster. We have got to
respond. Congress has not acted, and we just have to have
some action.
The President also said that the impetus for
Congressional action must come from strong Presidential
action.
With that brief report on the meeting, I am going
to turn you over to Frank Zarb, who will tell you about some
of the technical details of the proclamation that was signed
today, as well as some of the steps that were taken by the
President to alleviate the special problems of the Northeastern
States, and Alan Greenspan, also.
Q
Ron, when did it begin and when did it end?
MR. NESSEN: The meeting with the Governors began
fairly promptly, at 2:45 p.m., and it lasted until
about five minutes before he went in to sign the proclamation,
SO we will get the exact times for you.
Frank Zarb and Alan Greenspan will answer your
questions.
MR. ZARB: I have about a 60-minute statement
here, which I will read, if that is all right with everybody.
(Laughter.)
MORE
- 3 -
When I first took the assignment as Administrator
of the Federal Energy Administration, I had a good friend
who counseled me that I was undertaking a "no win" proposition,
and I would like to share with you an incident which helps
to sustain me during periodswhere that sometimes may appear
to be SO.
It was with a meeting with the labor leaders
recently where one of the more colorful labor leaders --
who, it turns out to be, is a hero to me -- pointed his
finger at me, and he said, "Young man, the thing you have
to do is to take the knee pads off our knickers because
I am tired of kneeling for American oil."
I think therein lies the essence of the spirit
with which we must go forward. The President has signed
the proclamation. We have been talking about it for a week.
I think you understand the substance of it.
With respect to the Northeastern areas of the
country, you should know this: the basic burden of petroleum
consumption in the Northeast is by way of product. A good
part of that is imported product. Eighty-five percent of
the fuel used to fire utilities in New England is residual
oil. Most all residual oil, as far as utilities, is also
imported, so you can see the dimensions of the difficulty
with respect to the Northeast.
Recognizing that, we have done two things. An
entitlements program was initiated in January, this month,
whereby we share the value of oil
or the lesser
expensive oil, not only with those refineries that have only
new, high-priced crude available to them, but also with
the residual users in New England. That is already in effect
and does transfer the value of some of the existing old
oil to New England.
Secondly, the President has directed that, in
the first month of the tariff program, there be no tariff
or no fee on product, and residual oil product is one of
the main culprits with respect to the Northeast situation.
Therefore, consumers in New England will not begin to feel
any impact at all until well into the month of March, and
then it will be relatively minimal because it will be only
a portion of the first 60 cents which will go on March 1st.
The second 60 cents goes on April 1st, thereby
bringing the product fee up to $1.20, while crude is at
$3. The equalization program, plus the variation in product
fees, and the delay, are all designed to equalize the impact
between the Northeastern part of the country and the rest of
the country.
MORE
- 4 -
We also have some information that I think we
can make available -- I am not- sure it has been duplicated
yet -- which demonstrates that, after the President's program
is fully enacted by the Congress, New England will not be
disadvantaged versus the rest of the country. Those areas
that use a lot of motor gasoline, as compared to heating
oil, which is the opposite condition from New England, will
pick up increased costs, and New England will not be that
area which will take the excess of burden.
Now, with respect to your questions.
MORE
- 5 -
Q
Mr. Zarb, where does Connecticut get the
idea that it is going to cost them $300 million?
MR. ZARB: I do not know. We had a considerable
amount of discussion about numbers. As you know, the
numbers and analysis which we have been using for the
most part have been developed over a period of almost
a year and developed through the Project Independence
report.
Additional analysis has been gotten more
recently with respect to specific areas, and there were
some questions about data which the Governors themselves
had accumulated about their States and the data which
we had available.
At the suggestion of either ourselves or one
of the Governors, we have agreed to put together our
people who have responsibility for this kind of analysis
and make some determinations as to how we arrived at
our ideas. I plan that we should do that as soon as
possible.
I also want to point out there is a more
permanent solution to areas such as the Northeast,
including the development of the Outer Continental
Shelf, the construction of refineries, the construction
of nuclear power, and coal conversion, where that is
applicable.
We found little resistance to those notions to
construct a more permanent solution so that they can
have access up there to more domestic and more reasonable
supply. It is going to take the Federal Government,
working with the Governors, to expedite that program, and
we intend to work with the Governors to see that that is
accomplished.
Q
Mr. Zarb, you say New England, the North-
east, will not feel the impact until mid-March. At
the same time that you are giving a full rebate in
February on imported products, are you not also taking
products out of the entitlement program so that there
will be a 60 cent impact in New England on every barrel
of imported product?
MR. ZARB: No.
MR. MONTGOMERY: The 60 cents that every barrel
of product gets. under the entitlements program represents
and is fully reflected in the reduction in the import
fee on product.
MORE
- 6 -
So, the reduction for the first month is not only
60 cents, which is the equivalent of the payment they would
have under the entitlements program, but an additional 40
cents, which represents the adjustment to keep the parity
between product and crude on the basis of the new $1 fee.
In other words, during the first month, you wipe out the fee
altogether, they get not only the 60 cents they would have
gotten, but an additional 40 cents.
MR. ZARB: That was a long way of saying no.
Q Mr. Zarb, are there any exceptions to the
program? When the previous fee program was announced, there
was a certain amount of fee-free oil, and we got one schedule
of fees as separate from this new $1, $2, $3 and you also
made a commitment then that, for five years, new and expanded
capacity would be exempt from fees for 75 percent of that
capacity. How is this affected by your proclamation?
MR. ZARB: Bob Montgomery will get to the capacity
question in a moment, but there are some exceptions and,
particularly, those that relate to importing petroleum
products, doing something with it, creating one or two
processes and then exporting it. That has formerly been
exempt and will also be exempt from this program. So, for
example, the exporter of petroleum chemicals will not be
affected.
Bob, the capacity exemption.
MR. MONTGOMERY: The capacity exemption and other
exemptions that are currently in effect will be in effect,
but the exemptions will apply only to the present fees.
The supplemental fees, $1, $2 and $3, will not be subject
to exemption, and the oil importer and so forth will not
have the authority to grant exemptions from those fees.
Q Sir, you have given a great deal of consideration
to New England. How about North Florida, Jacksonville in
particular, that is totally dependent on foreign oil? Will
they have any relief in that area?
MR. ZARB: The areas such as the one you described,
which are heavily dependent on residual oil for utility
consumption -- some partsof Los Angeles as I recall are the
same -- will enjoy the same benefits. Their product fees
will not go into effect at all during the month of February.
There will be a 60 percent impact or 60 percent increase in
March and 60 percent in April, to a total of $1.20, rather
than $3.
MORE
- 7 -
So, the balancing of those who are in that
particular predicament will also be affected. In addition,
they have enjoyed the entitlements program benefit that we
have been able to initiate.
Q
The entitlements will not be extended, but
the cost of a barrel of oil will only go up $1.20 to the
electric authority?
MR. ZARB: For the moment, the entitlements will
be extended, as well as the lesser rate of fee, which
will be applied to all products.
Q
I am speaking in terms of the exemption that
they have received for the import tax in the past. That
will continue by 50 cents a barrel, and they will have
another $1.20 tacked on to the price of a barrel of oil,
is that right?
MR. ZARB: Whatever exemptions were there before
would continue to be exempt.
Q
Mr. Zarb, your agency put out a rather detailed
rationing plan today. Under what circumstances might that
go into effect?
MR. ZARB: Unless there has been something put out
from my agency today that I am not aware of, what we did put
out was an analysis of the questions that have recently
been raised concerning a rationing program and how it would
be designed and how it would affect various families within
our society.
That preparation was designed in response to the
questions we have had in the last week, asking us how would
it work and who would it affect and how effective would it be.
There is no current plan to initiate a rationing program.
Q
That was not the question, Mr. Zarb.
MR. ZARB: I am sorry.
Q
The question was, under what conditions would
such a rationing plan go into effect? The questioner I don't
think said that there was a rationing.
MR. ZARB: I thought he said we had published a
rationing plan. That is what I was responding to.
MORE
- 8 -
Q
I said that you put out details of how one
would work if you put one into effect, and I want to know,
under what conditions you might consider putting it into
effect?
MR. ZARB: I would say a national emergency,
such as another embargo, would bring us very close to making
that decision.
Q
What else other than an embargo might constitute
an emergency?
MR. ZARB: That is about the only one I can think
of right now, outside of the conditions we faced during World
War II, which was also an emergency.
Q
Excuse me if this question was asked earlier,
but have you done any projections, estimated projections
on the amount of reduction in fuel use that would accrue
because of the President's importation increase?
MR. ZARB: Are you talking about the $1 program
alone, or are you talking about the whole thing, or the
entire President's program?
Q Starting out with what began today, the $1.
MR. ZARB: I don't know if we have the exact
effects. Obviously, when you consider the $1 as compared to
the total package, the amount of conservation will be very
small, and the phase-in period is designed to create a period
of adjustment rather than to have an immediate impact of
urgent savings.
What the program does do in its entirety, once
enacted by the Congress -- does get us to our million barrels
by the end of the year. There are those who have said --
I think the Wall Street Journal said -- it was only 800,000
barrels by the end of the year. Our projection indicates it
is between 800,000 and a million, with 200,000 barrels to
be brought onstream by Elk Hills and coal conversion.
Q
How small is the phase-in period? Are you
talking about 100,000, 200,000, half-a-million barrels?
MR. ZARB: If we are talking about a $3 tariff
alone, I really cannot give you that number. I had it, and
if I give you one now, it will be hip shooting, but we will
get it for you.
MORE
- 9 -
Q Mr. Zarb, could we get Mr. Greenspan up
there just for a moment.
MR. ZARB: It will be a pleasure.
Q Mr. Greenspan, could you tell us how you
arrived at your estimate of only a 2 percent increase in
the CPI from the combined effects of the President's program
and your claim that there will be no ripple effects to speak
of?
MR. GREENSPAN: Let me specify, first, what it is
that our analysis does, and I want to, first, say that this
type of analysis is not something which one has an exact
number. There are small ranges which I think one must
recognize in this sort of thing.
What we did was to calculate the total amount of
oil and gas increase that would be involved in the cost
structure. That comes out to that figure, which we have
talked about, something in the area of $30 billion, and it
is plus or minus a small amount.
Now, if you take that and you filter it through the
total economy, you come up with a figure which is approximately
2 percent. Now, the question that has often been raised is,
is there not a so-called ripple effect?
Now, what that means, of course, is that, in the
process of these costs working their way through the economy,
additional elements of cost or profit associate themselves
with that actual increase and, as a consequence, the aggregative
effect then proceeds to be in excess of 2 percent.
Now, if it is going to occur, it has to occur,
essentially, really in only two areas. One is in increased
wages and salaries, or in increased profits. Now, there
are a number of contracts, with cost of living escalators in
them, which would be triggered in the process of the CPI
changing. We analyze the effect. It turns out the number
is, in fact, quite small on an aggregate basis, because,
as you know, there are only several million, 3 to 5 million --
it depends on the way you are looking -- which are directly
affected by the CPI escalators, out of a total employment
of 85 million.
The real impact, however, that a lot of people
are arguing for, is on wages other than on the automatic
CPI cost of living escalator adjustment, and there are a
number of econometric models which somehow suggest there is
a significant impact there. I have looked over these
MORE
- 10 -
various calculations, and it is very difficult to justify.
These are complex calculations. I don't want to get into
the econometrics of it, but I do not find it very persuasive.
Secondly, we then proceeded to look at the impact
that has occurred on profits, and the only evidence we had
as a historical case, clearly, was the period around the
embargo. And we looked at what occurred to corporate profits,
ex-oil profits, which of course went up significantly during
that period, and we found that they did not go up. On the
contrary, they went down. Now, that is not conclusive evidence,
obviously, because there are lot of other factors involved.
MORE
- 11 -
Q
Price controls were in effect, then?
MR. GREENSPAN: Not during the whole period.
There are all sorts of cost passthroughs that were
allowed, and we are talking about even subsequent to that
because remember controls went off the end of April 1974,
so you can still take a look at the process before and
after.
We concluded that the evidence that profits
are affected in a positive way, increasing, is clearly
not there, and if anything, the evidence suggests that
there will be an incapacity of companies fully passing
through the price increase.
So, if anything, on the profits side, the
ripple effect is likely to be negative.
I do think there is likely to be some positive
effect on the wage side, some increase, and if we put
all the numbers together, what we conclude is that
there is no evidence which suggests figures of some
of the large 3.5 or 4 percent numbers which I have seen.
I just do not believe it. I think the evidence there is
really stretching what we have far beyond the validity of
the numbers.
I do not wish to say the figure is 2 percent.
I really do not know that. I am saying it is in the area
of 2 percent. It is possible it could even be less than
that. My guess is it is slightly more.
Q
Mr. Zarb, may I ask a question? Today at
the briefing Ron said that the $1, $2 and $3 oil fees
would probably raise the price of gasoline at the pump
about one cent a gallon for each dollar of fees.
Now, is that going to be true across the United
States, and when would that come into effect?
MR. ZARB: The calculation is nearly correct.
Let's take the first dollar, which becomes effective
February 1. The industry has the authoirty under our
regulations to pass costs through only in the month
following the one within which they occur.
So, in the case of the $1 on petroleum products,
they will. begin to be felt at the rate of one penny per
dollar during the month of March. Since the total sales
during the month of March are not going to be equivalent
to the total imports, the impact will be lesser.
MORE
- 12 -
With respect to product, it is even further
drawn out because the product fee does not go on until
March 1, and then the initial impact is not felt until
a month later.
Q
Can the people in New England expect a
penny a gallon more, to have to pay that more for gasoline
in March, April and May?
MR. ZARB: By the end of March in that product
about a penny a gallon would be close to right. With
respect to heating oil and utility rates, that would not
be true.
Q
What would be true?
MR. ZARB: Not until April would they feel
that because the rate does not go on until March 1. They
cannot pass it through for 30 days and then the pass-
through is only a small part of the total.
So, the first month's action is between 30 and
60 days away in terms of impact being felt by the individual
consumer.
Q
What about the rest of the country outside
of New England?
MR. ZARB: Outside of New England the one penny
per gallon will have begun to be felt during the month
of March, after the heating season.
Q
Mr. Zarb, when the program is fully in
effect, what percentage increase do you expect electric
bills to show?
MR. ZARB: A lot of that is going to depend on
how the electricity is generated. That is the problem,
and you cannot strike an average that is going to be
correct in each part of the country.
When the total President's program is enacted,
the average American family will pay an average of $13
a year more for just electricity, but keep in mind in some
areas of the country it is a lot lower than that, and
in some areas it will be somewhat higher.
Q
How about the Northeastern States?
MR. ZARB: It will get closer to $15 or $16,
is that correct, just the electric portion?
MORE
- 13 -
Q
Per month or per year?
MR. ZARB: Per year.
MR. MONTGOMERY: That adds up to the 171. That
is the increase.
Q
Do you have a figure just for this procla-
mation on what it will do to gasoline prices?
MR. ZARB: That was the question he asked, and
I just don't have it in front of me. I will get it
to you.
Q
The overall thing is 10 cents a gallon,
but this is a couple pennies less?
MR. ZARB: I think we estimated it was between
three and four cents, but you better let me get you
the specific number.
Q
I thought they gave five as the figure at
that briefing earlier today.
MR. ZARB: Just for the $3. I don't believe
it is quite that high.
Q
Mr. Zarb, you said for the rest of the
country the increase would be one cent a gallon and that
would be felt during March for the rest of the country
and then you stated it is after the heating season.
How about for gasoline for the rest of the
country?
MR. ZARB: It would be felt at the rate of
about one penny per gallon starting in March. Not
entirely because the total penny impact will not be
felt during the month of March. It won't be until April
that the full one penny will be felt per gallon.
Q
How will an increase in price of that
magnitude restrain demand?
MR. ZARB: As I noted earlier, the constraint
in demand is going to come from the full Presidential
program. This program is designed to phase in and
begin the process of adjustment so that when the total
package is approved by the Congress, we have had a
phase-in period.
MORE
- 14 -
Q
What will you do if Congress does not
approve any of the rest of it and you end up with a $3
tariff April 1? Is that enough to constrain demand?
MR. ZARB: No. It really is not. It is hard
to conceive that the Congress is not going to act. We
would like them to act quickly so that we can begin
to return that. money to the economy. Those who are in
the lower income brackets are going to receive more back
than these increases that we have just talked about would
affect them.
Q
If they don't act, though, will you have
to drop the whole tariff and come up with a whole new plan,
or could that be coupled with something else?
MR. ZARB: Russ, I think if they don't act we
will just have to review the situation and see what other
actions need to be taken. The President is absolutely
adamant that we need to turn this situation around and
turn it around now.
An exposure of an additional two million
barrels per day by the end of 1977 is completely
intolerable.
Q
Mr. Zarb, do you have a percentage or a
dollar figure for the cost of heating a home for the
Northern States?
MR. ZARB: I will give you a rough number. It
would be in total about $56 a year additional. That is
offset some because in New England there is a lot less
driving than there is in some other parts of the
country so that in parts of the country where there is
a lot of driving, they pick up a much higher burden
in gasoline as compared to heating oil.
So, in the ultimate, when you look at the
total distribution of cost, you find that the imbalance
does not accrue solely to Northeastern New England.
Q Is that an average family, that $56?
MR. ZARB: That is correct.
Q
Is that based upon heating the home at
the family's customary temperature or does that assume a
reduction in termperature to compensate for the increased
cost?
MR. ZARB: That does not assume the conservation
effect, which we hope to ultimately get through storm
windows and insulation.
MORE
- 15 -
Q
Mr. Zarb, you and Mr. Greenspan have just
been justifying your estimate of the inflation estimate
that you have made; that is, a one-time, 2 percent
increase in the Consumer Price Index. We heard the
Governors outside just now say their estimate is that
it would increase inflation 5 to 6 percent, and I
presume you discussed that disparity at the meeting.
Do you have any explanation as to why this
figure is so different from yours?
MR. ZARB: As Alan said, the most formal number
we have seen recently, publicly, was 4 percent, and that
was with university models that said the number was really
4 percent. We look at that very carefully. Alan has
examined it very carefully, and found that there is no
way to justify the 4 percent number.
In response to the issue where the Governors
say, "Our experts have come up with somewhat different
numbers on the bottom line," we have said, and Ihave
asked, that their experts meet with our people as soon as
it can be arranged and go over our analysis in every
detail and every last line and see where there may be an
opportunity for variation.
Q
Basically, you don't know right now why
their figures are so different from yours?
MR. ZARB: The first time I heard those numbers
was today.
Q
What figure were you settling on, Mr. Zarb
then -- to repeat -- for the cost on this proclamation
for gasoline and for heating?
MR. ZARB: In terms of total inflation rate
by the $3?
Q
Yes.
MR. ZARB: We don't have the number. It is maybe
2 percent, 2.5 percent for the total package, so
obviously it has to be substantially less than that with
just a $3 tariff on imported oil alone.
Q
Will there be a straight percentage figure
there if we took the total cost of the $3 import fee and
the $1.20 import fee and figured out how much money that
really involves.
Could we then compare that with $30 million
for the total package and draw our own conclusion about
the inflation impact?
MORE
- 16 -
MR. ZARB: I think that would be fair. You
would have to get approval from Alan Greenspan, but
from a noneconomist, it sounds correct.
Q
Mr. Zarb, what will you do if Congress
passes a joint resolution and delays imposition of the
fees to roll them back or rescind them?
MR. ZARB: That decision, what we would do
next, would really be up to the President.
Q
What would you recommend that he do?
MR. ZARB: I stay out of the business of really
telling everybody else what I recommend to the President.
I think we ought to just wait and see what happens if
those things occurred.
It is hard for me to believe, after recognizing
and realizing the extent of our exposure as a Nation,
that we won't get some forward movement. I said before
and I will say again that every step of the President's
program has a value and the value is in barrels of
oil.
If one of those steps is removed, it should be
substituted with another one that has an equivalent
effect and the same value. I do believe that we made
some material headway here. It is kind of interesting
and warms the cockles of my heart to sit here and talk
to you about the national energy problem.
It has been six to ten days now since the
President's plan has become public in full. We are
talking about the energy problem like we for the most
part believe that it is serious. The Governors sat in
there and to a Governor endorsed the fact that we had a
serious energy problem and should be doing something
about it..
There was no question about that. There
was no question about the goals that the President set
out. There was complete agreement with about 75 percent
of the President's package. And those other steps
affect long-term conservation and long-term substitution
of domestically controlled energy sources to back out
the imports.
So, if you look at that in total, we are 60
yards downfield and the remaining portion of the 15
percent of the President's program that we are debating
publicly is the strategy to use to achieve short-term
conservation.
From the standpoint of progress over ten days,
I think thatis pretty nifty.
MORE
- 17 -
Q
Mr. Zarb, you gave us the figure of 2
to 2.5 percent that you and Dr. Greenspan estimate we
will increase the inflation rate. Could you give us
a dollar figure per gallon of gas and the dollar
figure per gallon of heatingoil as a result of the
President's proclamation in the areas outside of New
England? That is an estimate.
MR. ZARB: I am reminded that per gallon
the increase is the same everywhere. Now, there is
a variation because of the New England resid imbalance,
so it is very hard to come up with a number for you. I
think you are going to have to work with the ten cents
per gallon when the full program is implemented and
probably something more than ten cents in gasoline,
something less than ten cents in the elastic products
such as home heating oil and then just extrapolate back-
wards using the $3 tariff, but you have to then crank
in the $1.20 for product.
In New England, they import a lot of heating
oil as well as a lot of residual oil. Buildings
in New York are heated with residual oil. That is an
imported product. So, you have to look at all these
variations. That is why I hate to give you national
averages because somebody who lives in Alaska looks
at the national average and says, "This guy is
really out of his mind."
Q
Mr. Zarb, the heating oil will come under
the distillate, the product program which is 60 cents.
MR. ZARB: If it is imported, that is correct,
and a good part of it is in that part of the country
imported. But I did try to make the point -- and after
the meeting I visited with several of the Governors --
that in the Northeast the more permanent solution is
what we really ought to be after.
Governor Noel made the point that the situation
as it exists now with the ultra-high dependence for
power on oil in that part of the country is a prime
source of the difficulty. So, we need to attack the
symptoms and I think the government working with the
Northeast group can sit down and develop a New England
plan within the total plan that can expedite the
development of some of the domestic sources required
there.
THE PRESS: Thank you, gentlemen.
END
(AT 5:00 P.M. EST)