Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- 7f1508235167c957
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 16987803
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "16987803",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16987803",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Energy (6)",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16987803",
"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": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16987803.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16987803.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16987803.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "16987803",
"label": "Energy (6)",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16987803"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "16987803",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16987803",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Energy (6)",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16987803",
"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": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16987803.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16987803.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16987803.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16987803",
"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"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16987803.pdf",
"mediaId": "7f1508235167c957",
"ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 13, folder \"Energy (6)\" of the James M. Cannon\nFiles at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 13 of the James M. Cannon Files\n,\nat the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nI\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nKris:\nHOLD for Cheney's comments on the\nCEQ/ERDA memo.\nC\nd\n9/16/76\nGERRAL & FORD LIBRARY\nPending\nCLEARANCE SHEET\nDATE: 9/9/76\nJMC ACTION\nRequired by:\nASAP\nSTAFF RESPONSIBILITY Schleede\nSUBJECT: CEQ Report on Energy R&D\nRECEIVED FROM:\nDATE RECEIVED:\nSTAFF COMMENTS:\nComments on George Humphreys memo\nof 9/7/76 to Art Quern, same subject\nQUERN /MOORE RECOMMENDATION:\nSchleede and Humphup have\nAPPROVE\nstrong feelings -- on opposite\nREVIEW & COMMENT\nsids I think you should meet\nDISCUSS\ntheir case, and decide on counse of action.\nwith them, - let them make\nCANNON ACTION:\nDATE:\nMaterial Has Been:\nSigned and forwarded\nChanged and signed\nReturned per conversation\nNoted\nJIM CANNON\nComment:\nREQUEST\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 8, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nGLENN SCHLEEDE\nSUBJECT:\nCEO Report on Energy R&D\nI have not reviewed the latest draft in detail but:\nA cursory review indicates that it has all the\ndefects on merits that were identified on page 2\nof my August 24, 1976 memo to you (copy attached).\nOMB staff indicate that it does not address the\nproblems they identified and which Jim Mitchell\nmay have brought to Chairman Peterson's attention.\nBeyond the substance and merits, I disagree with George\nFORD LIBRARY\nHumphrey's conclusion that we shouldn't delay CEQ's\nrelease of the report because I believe his argument\nconcerning \"heavy handedness\" is more than offset by\nthe following:\nAllowing CEQ to proceed would be a poor precedent\nin that the report:\n- Is of poor quality.\n- Puts an Executive Office Agency on record against\nAdministration position.\nAlso, it would \"reward\" CEQ for taking an approach\nwith a proposed public report that is pretty irrespon-\nsible. I find it hard to believe that the CEQ staff\ndidn't know they were challenging a previous position\nsince they had opportunity to participate in discussions\nleading to the President's Budget decisions and the\nreview of ERDA's 76-1. The responsible approach would\nhave been to:\n- Check the report in draft with OMB or us before it\nwas given to ERDA and leaked; or\n- Asked for reconsideration of the Administration\nposition -- to be settled by decision paper.\nThe basic points of disagreement are essentially the\n- 2 -\nsame ones that were at issue in the dispute\nwith ERDA over its \"R&D Plan. \" With your instructions\nand guidance, we insisted that ERDA get in line\nwith Administration position reflected in the\nPresident's budget and in his philosophy on Government\nVS. private sector role. (Incidentially, the ERDA\nreport had also leaked and there were ERDA staff\ncharges of heavy-handedness.) Why should we treat\nCEQ differently?\nPerhaps most important -- There has been a fairly\nlong standing practice (extending over at least\nthree administrations and I expect more than that)\nof Executive Office clearance for major reports\nto the Congress. (As far as I know, that practice\nis based on good sense rather than on explicit\nprovisions of law or the constitution.) Why do\nwe want to change now?\nRepeating an August 24, 1976 observation: The\nreport is optional - not mandatory. (Reference\nSection 11 (d) of the Act. Copy attached.)\nIf you do decide to go ahead, I would recommend that you\ncheck first with Lynn, O'Neill or Mitchell, because of\nthe potential for undercutting OMB efforts to get\nthe report corrected.\nCC: Art Quern\nFORD LIRRARY & 0728\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nINFORMATION\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 24, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR: JIM CANNON\nFROM:\nGLENN SCHLEEDE\nSUBJECT:\nCEQ REPORT EVALUATING ERDA'S ENERGY\nR&D PROGRAM\nA couple of weeks ago, I sent you a note alerting you\nto potential problems with a report CEQ has drafted\non the Council's evaluation of ERDA's energy R&D\nprogram.\nCEQ is required by law to evaluate the adequacy\nof attention to energy conservation, environmental\nprotection, and the environmental consequences of\nthe application of energy technologies. CEQ has\nthe option of submitting a report to the President,\nthe Congress, or others as may be necessary. CEQ has\nopted to submit a report simultaneously to the Congress and\nto the President. A draft of the report has already\nleaked to the press (alledgedly by ERDA) and has been\nthe subject of two Jack Anderson columns.\nMy last note pointed out that OMB has some serious\nproblems with the report. I am not yet clear as to\nwhat action Jim Mitchell and Jim Lynn will take.\nSteve Jellinek asked me to review the most serious\nproblem chapter -- energy conservation R&D -- and mark\nit up to indicate changes that I believe are necessary.\nI started doing this but after completing the first\n2-1/2 pages concluded that changes that would be\nnecessary to bring the report in line with Administration\nposition are very extensive. I told Steve Jellinek of\nthis and indicated it would take me some time to do a\nmark up on the entire section on energy conservation --\nwhich runs about 40 pages.\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n-2-\nI was advised earlier today by CEQ staff that (a) Chairman\nPeterson directed that the draft be sent to GPO to be\nput in galley proof form, (b) changes have not yet been\nmade to solve problems identified, (c) Dr. Peterson is\nnow considering what action he will take with respect to\nobjections from OMB and me, and (d) further attempts\nby me to mark up the report are probably not worthwhile.\nBriefly, my problems with the energy conservation section\nare as follows:\n1. It calls for a Federal role in energy R&D that is\ninconsistent with:\n- the President's 1977 budget decisions;\n- Administration philosophy on Federal VS. private\nrole;\n- the ERDA energy R&D report which was modified\non this same point and cleared after extensive\ndiscussions.\n2. It does not distinguish between Federal and National\n(i.e., Federal and non-Federal) responsibilities.\n3. It outlines an unrealistic analytic approach to\ndecisions on energy conservation R&D (which also\ncontributes to a larger Federal role).\n4. It will provide the basis for additional criticism\nof the President for not requesting enough money\nfor energy conservation R&D.\nThis report may be a conscious attempt to bring about a\nchange in Administration position on energy conservation\nR&D. If this is the case, I think it is the wrong approach.\nI think that should be approached through a decision\npaper. I would also point out that CEQ has had an\nopportunity to participate in the review of ERDA's 1977\nbudget request and in the review of ERDA's Energy R&D Plan.\nOMB staff just informed me that there is another place\nin the CEQ draft where the Council's position contradicts\ncurrent Administration position; i.e., CEQ apparently\nis taking a position that fossil energy R&D should not\nproceed as fast as it now is until more work on environmental\nimpact is done by the environmental people at ERDA. ERDA\nand OMB position has been that such work should be done by\nthe people responsible for the fossil technology development\nand not necessarily by the environmental people.\nEnclosure - excerpt from law\nCC: George Humphreys\nGLRALO FORD LIBRARY\n(1) une ACC entited An process\nagainst unlawful restraints and monopolies\", approved July 2,\ncalendar days of continuous session of Congress after the date on which\n1890 (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), as amended;\nsuch proposed rule or order is transmitted to it unless, between the\n(2) the Act entitled \"An Act to supplement existing laws\ndate of transmittal and the end of the thirty day period, either House\nagainst unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other pur-\npasses a resolution stating in substance that such House does not favor\nposes\", approved October 15, 1914 (15 U.S.C. 12 ct seq.) as\nsuch n proposed rule or order.\namended;\n(ii) the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 11 ct seq.),\nWATER RESOURCE EVALUATION\nas amended;\n(4) sections 73 and 74 of the Act entitled \"An Act to reduce\nSEc. 13. (a) At the request of the Administrator, the Water 42 USC 5\nResources Council shall undertake assessments of water resource\ntaxation. to provide revenue for the Government, and for other\npurposes\", approved August 27, 1894 (15 U.S.C. 8 and 0), as\nrequirements and water supply availability for any nonnuclear energy\namended; and\ntechnology and any probable combinations of technologies which are\n(5) the Act of June 19, 1936, chapter 592 (15 U.S.C. 13, 13a,\nthe subject of Federal research and development efforts authorized by\n13b, and 21a).\nthis Act, and the commercial development of which could have signifi-\ncant impacts on water resources. In the preparation of its assessment,\nthe Council shall-\nENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION\n(1) utilizo to the maximum extent practicable data on water\nO.\nSec. 11. (n) The Council on Environmental Quality is authorized\nsupply and demand available in the files of member agencies of\nand directed to carry out n continuing analysis of the effect of appli-\nthe Council;\ncation of nonnuclear energy technologies to evaluate—\n(2) collect and compile any additional data it deems necessary\n(1) the adequacy of attention to energy conservation methods;\nfor complete and accurate assessments;\nand\n(3) give full consideration to the constraints upon availability\n(2) the adequacy of attention to environmental protection and\nimposed by treaty, compact, court decree, State water laws, and\nthe environmental consequences of the application of energy\nwater rights granted pursuant to State and Federal law;\ntechnologies.\n(4) assess the effects of development of such technology on\n(b) The Council on Environmental Quality, in carrying out the\nwater quality;\nprovisions of this section, may employ consultants or contractors and\n(5) include estimates of cost associated with production and\nmay by fund transfer employ the services of other Federal agencies\nmanagement of the required water supply, and the cost of disposal\nfor the conduct of studies and investigations.\nof waste water generated by the proposed facility or process;\n(c) The Council on Environmental Quality shall hold annual public\n(6) assess the environmental, social, and economic impact of\nhearings on the conduct of energy research and development and the\nany change in use of currently utilized water resource that may\nprobable environmental consequences of trends in the development\nbe required by the proposed facility or process; and\nand application of energy technologies. The transcript of the hearings\n(7) consult with the Council on Environmental Quality.\nty.\nshall be published and made available to the public.\n(b) For any proposed demonstration project which may involve\n(d) The Council on Environmental Quality shall make such reports\na significant impact on water resources, the Administrator shall, as\nto the President, the Administrator, and the Congress as it deems\nn precondition of Federal assistance to that project, prepare or have\nappropriate concerning the conduct of energy research and develop-\nprepared an assessment of the availability of adequate water resources.\nment. The President as a part of the annual Environmental Policy\nA report on the assessment shall be published in the Federal Register\nPublicat\nReport required by section 201 of the National Environmental Policy\nfor public review thirty days prior to the expenditure of Federal\nin Feder\nAct of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4341) shall set forth the findings of the Council\nfunds on the demonstration.\nRegister\non Environmental Quality concerning the probable environmental\n(c) For any proposed Federal assistance for commercial applica-\nconsequences of trends in the development and application of energy\ntion of energy technologies pursuant to this Act, the Water Resource\ntechnologies.\nCouncil shall, ns a precondition of such Federal assistance, provide\nACQUISITION OF ESSENTIAL MATERIALS\nto the Administrator an assessment of the availability of adequate\nGERALD\nwater resources for such commercial application and an evaluation\n11.\nSec. 12. (a) The President may, by rule or order, require the allo-\n4.\nof the environmental, social, and economic impacts of the dedication of\ncation of, or the performance under contracts or orders (other than\nwater to such uses.\ncontracts of employment) relating to, supplies of materials and equip-\nment if he finds that-\nFORD\n(d) Reports of assessments and evaluations prepared by the Coun-\nPublicat\ncil pursuant to subsections (a) and (c) shall be published in the Fed-\nin Feder\n(1) such supplies are scarce, critical, and essential to carry out\nLIBRARY\neral Register and nt lenst ninety days shall be provided for public\nRegister\nthe purposes of this Act; and\nreview and comment. Comments received shall accompany the reports\n(2) such supplies cannot reasonably be obtained without exer-\nwhen they are submitted to the Administrator and shall be available\ncising the authority granted by this section.\nto the public.\n(b) The President shall transmit any rule or order proposed under\n(c) The Council shall include a broad survey and analysis of\nsubsection (a) of this section (bearing an identification number) to\nregional and national water resource availability for energy devel-\neach House of Congress on the date on which it is proposed. If such\nopment in the biennial assessment required by section 102(a) of the\nproposed rule or order is transmitted to the Congress such proposed\nWater Resources Planning Act (12 U.S.C. 1962a-1(a)).\nSchleede\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 7, 1976\nMEMORANDUM TO: ART QUERN\nand\nFROM:\nGEORGE W. HUMPHREYS\nSUBJECT:\nCEQ Report on ERDA\nYou asked the status of the ongoing discussions.\nSchleede is reviewing CEQ's newest draft to see to what\ndegree his original objections are being met. I do not\nbelieve that Glenn will find the new draft completely\nacceptable, based on my understanding of his original\nproblems.\nI do not think that the overriding issue is whether the\nreport does or does not follow Administration policy.\nI believe it to be a mistake for us to hold up the issuance\nof this report. Its existence, and substance, is already\nknown and the charge of \"heavy-handed White House pressure\"\nwill create more problems than will the report.\nWithout arguing the merit of Glenn's objections, I strongly\nrecommend we do nothing further to delay CEQ's release.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 9, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nFROM:\nART GLENN JIM QUERN CANNON SCHLEEDE Iftern\nSUBJECT:\nCEQ REPORT ON ENERGY R&D\nI've just learned that OMB has given formal\ncomments to CEQ on earlier draft of their\nreport.\nA copy of Mitchell's memo is attached.\nAttachment.\nFORD LIBRARY\n091003\nAugust 30, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR RUSS PETERSON, CEQ\nFROM:\nJIM MITCHELL\nSubject:\nCEQ report evaluating ERDA's Environmental\nand Conservation Programs\nAs you know, OMB and Domestic Council representatives have\nbeen reviewing the subject CEQ report--working with\nSteve Jellinek and others of your staff.\nAlthough considerable OMB staff time has been devoted to\nsuggested changes in the proposed CEQ report--a number\nof which have been incorporated in successive drafts--there\nare still fundamental problems that go beyond editing and\nwhich are of a fundamental policy nature, particularly\nin the conservation section of the report.\nThese fundamental policy problems arise because the\nreport tends, by its tone and emphasis, to call for an\nexpanded Federal role in conservation R&D that is\ninconsistent with:\n-- the Administration's policy on Federal vs.\nprivate role;\n-- the President's 1977 budget decision which\nreflects the above policy; and\n-- the ERDA \"National Plan\" which was\nmodified to reflect more carefully\nthe Administration's position, particularl\nFORD LIBRARY & GERRLD\non the premise of the private role and\nresponsibility in conservation and\nconservation R&D.\nIt will, therefore, provide the basis for further criticism\nof the President for not requesting more funds for energy\nconservation and, particularly will inhibit his ability to\nconsider the possible deferral of some or all of the\nadditional funds added by Congress.\n2\nThere is one other section of the report, namely, the\nchapter dealing with fossil energy R&D that gives us\na problem. The report takes the position that fossil energy\nR&D should be slowed down until more work is done on\nenvironmental impact by the Environmental Division of\nERDA. This suggests that the President's budget is too\nhigh in the fossil energy area and, therefore, undermines\nthe Administration's program. Our view is that analysis\nof the environmental impact of fossil energy technologies\nis important, but that such work should be undertaken by\nboth the Environmental Division of ERDA and the technology\nprogram people involved and, furthermore, that present\ndeficiencies in dealing with environmental concerns are\nnot serious enough to warrant slowing down the program.\nI want to add my strong support of the views that have\nbeen expressed by my colleagues in OMB and urge that you\nundertake an extensive rewrite that will be more in keeping\nwith a realistic assessment of the Federal responsibility,\nparticularly in conservation R&D as expressed by this\nAdministration.\nCC:\nOfficial File - SET Division\nMr. Loweth\nFORD LIBRARY & GERALD\nMr. Taft\nMr. Struthers\nMr. Appleman\nSET: HFLoweth:bi 8/30/76\nEnewy\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 21, 1976\nDear Mr. Lamb:\nThank you very much for your letter\nof August 23 in which you showed deep\ninsight and understanding of the\nenergy conservation problem. I have\nmade certain that your views have\nbeen communicated to appropriate and\nGERALD LIBRARY ? FORD\nresponsible members of the White House\nstaff for their review.\nAgain, thank you for writing and\nexpressing your views.\nSincerely,\nJames M. Cannon\nAssistant to the President\nfor Domestic Affairs\nMr. John K. Lamb\nLamb and Company, Inc.\n1111 Meta Drive\nCincinnati, Ohio 45237\nReading\nhim\n8/25. that\nletter.\nAugust 23, 1976\nto Lambad onshed. his\nMr. Cannon:\nnp;\nJohn Lamb (513) 242-1500, a volunteer representing\nthe Public Advertising Council would like to see you\nfor about 10 minutes on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday\nmorning regarding the Energy Conservation Plan and an\nalternate proposal. This meeting would have to do with\nboth your position and the Energy Conservation Council.\nHe said he has previously talked to Todd Hullin\nand Ken Cole. Also said he would prefer to talk to you\nand not someone else.\nI WILL TALK TO MR. LAMB\nFORD LIBRARY is GERALD\nI WILL NOT TALK TO MR. LAMB\nREFER TO SCHLEEDE\nOTHER\nNote\nK\nAugust 23, 1976\nMr. James Cannon\nExecutive Director, Domestic Council\nThe White House\nWashington, D. C.\nDear Mr. Cannon:\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nOf urgent necessity I must communicate with you as Executive Director of the\nDomestic Council and as a member of the Energy Resources Council. It is my\njudgment that you will be responsive, as were Ken Cole and Tod Hullin, to a\ncommon sense approach to energy conservation. I respectfully request that\nthis letter not be bucked to Mr. Zarb or his staff, as it is the FEA Energy Con-\nservation Contingency Plan to which I take exception.\nIt is conceded that in drafting the Plan now on its way to the Energy Resources\nCouncil for review that the options of the FEA were constrained by their direc-\ntive under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. This may account\nfor the plan which has resulted in massive bureaucratic regulation in a most\ncomplicated way, reaching all the way down to telling even the mom and pop\nroadside grocery or marginal motel that they may not illuminate their sign,\nwhich is their only means of communicating with prospective customers, regard-\nless of how dark the day is, until \"normal night hours. II All this to achieve a\nmicroscopic saving of electrical energy which for full use equals only approxi-\nmately two-tenths of one per cent (using highest figures for full use, .28 of 1%).\nIt is this kind of regulation that drives our citizens up the wall and causes dis-\ntrust and resentment of Washington; is contrary to the policy of our Republican\nplatform clearly set forth in the keynote address, and later by other party stal-\nwarts. I am sure the feeling of the President is that he would be opposed to\nsuch regulation.\nBut let me make it clear at this point that I am not seeking\nexemption.\nOn the contrary, I proposed to the Office of Contingency Planning a simple alter-\nnative plan that would place the responsibility for energy conservation equally\nacross the board upon each establishment, leaving it to management to determine\nhow best to save energy in a way that would do the least harm to the business.\n1111 Meta Drive\nCincinnati, Ohio 45237\n513 / 242-1500\n- 2 -\nMr. James Cannon\nAugust 23, 1976\nIf the present goal of 10% saving is found not sufficient, the goal could be in-\ncreased to 15% or more as determined by the need, but it could not be so con-\ntrolled under the Plan now drafted. Policing this alternate plan would involve\na minimum staff and could be left to local authorities without the problem of\nsubjective judgments and interpretation of the language in certain sections of\nthe present Plan.\nI made this same proposal to John C. Sawhill, former Director of the FEA in\n1973 and it was accepted, as is evidenced by his letter to me, copy of which\nis attached. It was also on the record of congressional intent through the\nTaft amendment, Jackson colloquy, and Clancy remarks, as documented in the\nAddenda.\nMy deep concern, Mr. Cannon, is the effect of the present Plan upon small\nbusiness, particularly retail merchants and others who depend upon their sign\nwhich hangs or stands in front of their business to identify the establishment,\ncommunicate to prospective customers the goods of services available at that\nlocation for spot or future purchases. These signs are called \"on-premise\nilluminated advertising signs.\"\nMy plea to you is with specific regard to the provision in the Plan under Part 5\nwhich rules that \"on-premise advertising signs and window displays may only\nbe illuminated during normal night hours of operation of an establishment.\"\na. The fundamental error is that the Plan confuses on-premise advertising\nsignage, which is commercial communication, with lighting, which it is\nnot. You will be interested in the ruling of the U. S. Supreme Court on\nMay 24, 1976, that a ban on prescription drug advertising by the Virginia\nState Board of Pharmacy violated the first amendment guaranteeing freedom\nof speech. Their judgment was that although the \"advertiser's interest\nin a commercial advertisement is purely economic, this does not disqualify\nhim from protection under the first and fourteenth amendments. Both the\nindividual consumer and society in general may have strong interests in\nthe free flow of commercial information.\" In good conscience, shouldn't\nthe small businessman be provided the same protection under the first\namendment by the FEA?\nb. The proposed plan unfairly discriminates against small business in favor\nof big business retailers. Big business retailers have easily identifiable\nbuildings; use radio, television, and newspaper spreads to reach their\nmarket; big chain hotels use Watts lines, convention bureaus, and book-\ning agents -- none of which are economically available to small business\nproprietors. Even if they could afford these means of communication, 75%\nof it would fall outside the area they can serve.\nGERALE FORD LIBRARY\n- 3 -\nMr. James Cannon\nAugust 23, 1976\nMost people outside of retailing have never thought of it before, but\nproperly understood, the on-premise illuminated advertising sign is the\nprincipal means, and in many cases the only means, the small business\nproprietor has of communicating the goods or services available at that\nlocation, together with the identity of the business. To deprive small\nbusiness of the opportunity to advertise by the principal or only means\navailable to them, while permitting the big business retailers to do so,\nis clearly a violation of the spirit and possibly the letter of the fourteenth\namendment.\nIt is important to understand that retailing involves one out of six em-\nployed Americans (these are Ohio statistics which I believe are typical)\nand their families. Aside from the issues of fairness and over-regulation,\nit has grave economic implications for our country because should an\nemergency occur which would require enforcement of the Plan, other fac-\ntors in an energy crisis would sharply curtail retail business, especially\nautomobile-oriented business, and for the government to force a cut\nback of sales at the retail level (where recessions begin) would trigger\nserious economic consequences -- avoidable and unnecessary difficulties.\nC. You will, I believe, find the ambiguous nature of the language interesting.\nThe Plan reads: \"on-premise advertising signs and window displays may\nonly be illuminated during normal nighthours of operation of an establish-\nment.\"\n1. What are 'hormal night hours\"? (See Webster.) The ambiguity\nitself opens the door for a wide range of interpretation at every\nlevel: federal, state, municipal. Result: confusion, and legis-\nlative problems too massive for small business to cope with.\n2. If \"night hours\" only, what about New England, upper New York,\nMichigan, Wisconsin, and the upper western states where there\nis darkness in the late afternoon during the winter months -- not\nto mention Alaska. Has no one considered snowstorms, rain,\nfog or smog which cause daytime darkness everywhere -- in New\nYork City or the side streets of Philadelphia, for example ? Even\nGeorgetown. How would you find a drug store, driving in heavy\ntraffic, if its sign was out?\nd. Another aspect of the Plan seems worthy of consideration: Statistics made\navailable at the public hearings on the Energy Conservation Contingency\nPlan show that only seventeen per cent (17%) of U. S. electrical energy\nis generated by oil fired turbines, the remainder deriving its generation\nfrom coal, hydro, and nuclear power. Only in certain areas of the country,\n- 4 -\nMr. James Cannon\nAugust 23, 1976\ntherefore, would contingencies requiring the conservation of electrical\nenergy be required. In the case of a petroleum shortfall, bearing in\nmind the economic effect of such a shortfall all over the country in terms\nof automobile oriented and petroleum based business and employment,\nwouldn't it be unwise to superimpose electrical restrictions where none\nwas required?\ne. Of concern to those at FEA who have opposed the exclusion of on-premise\nsignage is the opinion that because of their high visibility, such signs\nwhen illuminated at night might appear to be a visible waste of energy.\nThe fact is that an average 3' X 5' or 4' X 6' on-premise illuminated sign\nuses three (3) or four (4) fluorescent lamps similar to those used in many\noffice or incandescent fixtures, i. e., 260 to 330 watts. Typically,\nthey do not credit free enterprise with the initiative to meet this problem\non a public relations basis.\nf. In support of our premise that energy conservation should be required\nequally of each establishment, and that management should be permitted\nto determine how it can accomplish required energy conservation with the\nleast harm to the business (in areas where required), it should be noted\nthat retailers can turn off lights in the rear of the store or restaurant and\nsave more energy.\nOne restaurant operator told me he can, with\na little planning, turn off one device in the\nkitchen for one hour and save all the current\nhis on-premise advertising sign uses all week.\ng. No one is impressed by the numbers of energy conserved through curtail-\ning on-premise advertising signage. If an energy emergency occurs,\nmerchants, being aware, will conserve naturally without over-regulation\nfrom Washington.\nh. Small business is not asking for exemption -- only for fair treatment, pro-\ntection under the first and fourteenth amendments, and language not invit-\ning subjective interpretations by fifty state legislatures and their various\nFORD\nsubcommittees and energy enforcement agencies.\nIn Conclusion:\nGERALD\nWe have explained that on-premise illuminated advertising signs are not lighting\nfixtures, the purpose of which is to light an area. They are in fact a communica-\ntion device - an absolutely essential means of communication for small business\n- 5 -\nMr. James Cannon\nAugust 23, 1976\nretailers and automobile oriented businesses (drive-ins, motels, shopping\ncenters, et cetera). We have explained that because the numbers of energy\nconserved is so minimal that curtailment would be counter-productive, and\nthat the bureaucracy simply could not get into the business of regulating every\n2/10 of 1% of electrical usage.\nWe have explained that the Energy Conservation Contingency Plan is contrary\nto the intent of Congress in 1973, and a reversal of previous FEA stated policy.\nWe therefore request that you advise the Domestic Council and the Energy Re-\nSources Council to direct the FEA to remove on-premise illuminated signs from\nthe Energy Conservation Contingency Plan.\nFurther, we suggest that due consideration be given to a plan to achieve energy\nconservation where and when required, in such types of energy as may be appro-\npriate, equally on the basis of the total energy requirements of each establish-\nment, permitting management to determine how it can accomplish such conserva-\ntion with the least harm or disruption to the functions therein.\nNote: FEA has informed me that they have studies under way on\nthis concept, following my suggestions to them on this subject.\nCan we count on your support?\nSincerely yours,\nEphn Damb John K. Lamb\nFor the Business Advertising Council\nJKL:1m\nAddendum A\nFEDERAL ENERGY OFFICE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20461\nJune 6, 1974\nOFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR\nMr. John K. Lamb\nLamb and Company, Inc.\n1111 Meta Drive\nCincinnati, Ohio 45237\nDear Mr. Lamb:\nI understand that there continues to be considerable\nconfusion as to the government's position with respect to\nthe use of electrical advertising signs. Apparently the\nconfusion began with a provision included in a bill con-\nsidered last fall by the Senate which would have required\na substantial reduction in the use of all electrical\nadvertising signs. I can readily understand your concern\nsince the confusion apparently is having a serious and\nunnecessary impact on retail merchants and the electrical\nsign industry.\nThe Federal Energy Office recognizes that all electrical\nsigns should not be considered in the same way for energy\nconservation purposes. First, I should make clear that we\nfeel strongly that energy conservation is still very\nimportant. This does not mean that the drastic actions\nsuch as those recommended during the embargo are required,\nbut it does mean continuing efforts will be necessary to\navoid spot shortages in the coming months and to reduce the\nrate of growth in the Nation's longer term demand for energy.\nSpecifically with respect to electrical advertising signs,\nthe Federal Energy Office recognizes that there are two\ngeneral categories: outdoor electrical signs that are\ngenerally located off the premises of business establish-\nments and \"on premise\" signs used to show the identity of\nthe business and goods or services available at that location.\nEnergy conservation efforts should be approached differently\nfor each category.\nCONSERVE\nAMERICA'S\nENERGY\nR.FORD CIRRARY\nSave Energy and You Serve America!\n- 2 -\nIn the \"off premise\" sign category, the Federal Energy\nOffice has been working with the outdoor advertising\nindustry to develop a voluntary energy curtailment program\nto achieve a 25 percent energy reduction by all such users\nacross the Nation.\nIn the \"on premise\" sign category, our policy is to consider\nelectrical signs as a part of the total energy requirements\nof the establishment. We encourage owners and managers to\ndevelop energy conservation plans which reduce the establish-\nment's overall energy requirements but to do this in a way\nthat has the least impact on the firm's livelihood and\nproductivity. This may mean that electricity for the\nlighting of window displays, interior lighting, heating or\ncooling, or other uses should be reduced rather than turning\noff their \"on premise\" signs. This decision should be left\nto the firm's management.\nI hope this will clarify our position and I appreciate\nknowing of your continued interest and support for energy\nconservation activities.\nSincerely,\nJohn C. Sawhill\nAdministrator\nFORD LIBRARY & CERALO\nAddendum B\nNovember 16, 1973\nCONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE\n20693\nQUORUM CALL\nNUNN) be listed as a cosponsor of the\nfed through current reducing transform-\nmodification.\ners. These signs are important to the re-\nMr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,\nMr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,\ntail merchants who are highly dependent\nI suggest the absence of a quorum.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk\ncontinuing to reserve the right to object,\nupon them. In some cases they take the\nmay I ask the distinguished sponsor of\nplace of store windows. In others, they\nwill call the roll.\nthe amendment if this request has been\nidentify the location to a motorist mov-\nThe assistant legislative clerk pro-\ncleared with the distinguished junior\ning at 25 or 50 miles an hour on the street\nceeded to call the roll.\nSenator from Georgia?\nor highway. In any event, they are valu-\nMr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,\nMr. TAFT. The Senator from\nable to the storeowners who would be\nI ask unanimous consent that the order\nfor the quorum call be rescinded.\nGeorgia requested that he be listed as\nseverely hurt if their use were to be\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Without\na cosponsor, and the request has been\ncurtailed.\ncleared with the Senator.\nI urge that efforts be made in imple-\nobjection, it is so ordered.\nMr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,\nmentation so that the small firm will not\nI have no objection.\nbear the burden or discriminatory brunt\nNATIONAL ENERGY EMERGENCY\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Without\nof the necessary controls on energy\nACT OF 1973\nobjection, it is so ordered.\nusage. In addition, measures should be\nMr. TAFT. Mr. President, this amend-\ntaken so that possible materials short-\nThe Senate resumed the consideration\nment would add to subsection b. a clause\nages resulting from energy shortages are\nof the bill (S. 2589) to authorize and di-\n4. saying: \"any controls instituted shall\nnot proportionately greater for small\nrect the President and State and local\nbe insofar as practicable, equitably ap-\nfirms.\ngovernments to develop contingency\nplied to all businesses, whether large or\nMr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I think\nplans for reducing petroleum consump-\nsmall; and due consideration shall be\nthis is an excellent amendment that sig-\ntion, and assuring the continuation of\ngiven to the unique problems of retailing\nnificantly improves the bill, and the com-\nvital public services in the event of emer-\nestablishments and small business so as\nmittee supports the bill.\ngency fuel shortages or severe disloca-\nnot to discriminate or cause unneces-\nMr. FANNIN. Mr. President, I support\ntions in the Nation's fuel distribution\nsary hardship in the administration or\nthe amendment.\nsystem, and for other purposes.\nimplementation of the provisions of this\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-\nMr. TAFT. Mr. President, I offer an\nAct.\"\ntion is on agreeing to the amendment as\namendment to section 303 of the bill, as\nThe National Energy Emergency Act\nmodified.\namended by the Nunn amendment. I call\nof 1973 provides that the rationing and\nThe amendment as modified is agreed\nup my amendment No. 663, as modified\nconservation program provided for shall\nto\nfor consideration.\ninclude measures capable of reducing\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill\nMr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,\nenergy consumption in the affected areas\nis open to further amendment.\nwhat was that request?\nby no less than 10 percent within 10\nMr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Is this an\ndays and by no less than 25 percent\nI suggest the absence of a quorum.\namendment to the pending measure or to\nwithin 4 weeks after implementation.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk\none of the bills we have just passed?\nSeveral examples are mentioned, includ-\nwill call the roll.\nMr. TAFT. Mr. President, it is an\ning lighted advertising, and limitations\nThe assistant legislative clerk pro-\namendment to the pending measure.\non operating hours of commercial estab-\nceeded to call the roll.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The\nlishments.\nMr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President\namendment as modified will be stated.\nIn passing judgment on this legisla-\nI ask unanimous consent that the order\nFORD\nThe second assistant legislative clerk\ntion, it is recognized that there may be\nfor the quorum call be rescinded.\nread as follows:\nhardships during this energy emergency,\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Without\nAfter section 302(d) add the following:\nbut with the proper cooperation of State\nobjection, it is so ordered.\n(D) any controls instituted shall be inso-\nand local governments and the pub-\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BEN-\nLIBRARY\nfar as practicable, equitably applied to all\nlic, hopefully no one sector of the econ-\nNETT). In accordance with the previous\nbusinesses, whether large or small; and due\nomy will bear a disproportional share\nconsideration shall be given to the unique\norder, the Chair now lays before the Sen-\nof the burden.\nproblems of retailing establishments and\nate the amendment of the Senator from\nsmall business so as not to discriminate or\nThe suggestion in this legislation that\nWashington (Mr. JACKSON), No. 685,\ncause unnecessary hardship in the adminis-\nlimitations may be placed on the operat-\nwithout objection, the text of the amend-\ntration or implementation of the provisions\ning hours of commercial establishments,\nment will be printed in the RECORD.\nof this Act.\nhas caused concern among many owners\nThe amendment reads as follows:\nMr. TAFT. Mr. President, this amend-\nof small shops and businesses, such as\nAMENDMENT No. 685\nment I think is a noncontroversial one.\nneighborhood grocery stores, which de-\nAdd a new Section 101 (h) after line 2,\nIt simply expresses a general direction\npend largely upon after-hour trade for\nat page 14, as follows:\nsurvival\nwith respect to the small business and\n\"(h) the protection and fostering of com-\nretail establishments insofar as the\nThe purpose of my amendment, there-\npetition and the prevention of anticompeti-\npending bill is concerned.\nfore, is to insure that these small busi-\ntive practices and feets are vital during the\nnesses be given equal consideration in\nenergy emergency.'\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The\nAdd a new Section 102(h) áfter line 6, at\nChair will interrupt the Senator to state\nimplementation and administration of\npage 15, as follows:\nthat since this is an amendment to an\nthe conservation measures to reach our\n\"(h) insure against anticompetitive prac-\namendment that has already been agreed\ngoals. This is not to say that anyone\ntices and effects and preserve, enhance, and\nto, the Senator must have unanimous\nshould be totally exempted from coopera-\nfacilitate competition in the development,\nconsent to consider the modification at\ntion in saving our energy, for we all must\nproduction, transportation, distribution and\nthis time.\nwork together. However, in implement-\nmarketing of energy resources.\"\nMr. TAFT. Mr. President, I ask unani-\ning the act, it would seem to be possible\nAdd a new Section 312 after line 8, at\nmous consent that I be permitted to have\nto avoid causing undue hardship to any\npage 33, as follows, and redesignate the re-\nmaining sections:\nmy amendment considered at this time.\none sector of the economy.\n\"SEC. 312. ANTITRUST PROVISIONS.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there\nThis same provision of the bill, cutting\n(a) Except as specifically provided in sub-\nobjection to the request of the Senator\nback energy consumption by 25 percent\nsections (f) and (k), no provision of this\nfrom Ohio?\nwithin 4 weeks after implementation,\nAct shall be deemed to convey to any person\nMr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,\nraises another question.\nsubject to this Act any immunity from civil\nreserving the right to object, I have no\nWould this provision mean that on-\nor criminal liability, or to create defenses\ndesire to object but I inquire as to whose\nto actions, under the antitrust laws.\npremise identification signs which are\namendment this would amend.\n(b) As used in this section, the term \"anti-\nelectrically lighted would be curtailed by\ntrust laws\" includes—\nMr. TAFT. This amendment would\n25 percent? As I understand it, there are\namend the amendment of the Senator\n(1) the Act entitled \"An Act to protect\ntwo kinds of signs involved in this cate-\ntrade and commerce against unlawful re-\nfrom Georgia (Mr. NUNN).\ngory. These are fluorescent signs, which\nstraints and monopolies\", approved July 2,\nI also ask unanimous consent that the\nare illuminated by fluorescent tubes, sim-\n1890 (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.)\nname of the Senator from Georgia (Mr.\nilar to those in our offices, and neon signs\n(2) the Act entitled \"An Act to supplement\nSTATEMENT OF HON. DONALD D. CLANCY, A REPRESENTATIVE\nIN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO Addendum B\nMr. CLANCY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank\nyou for providing me this opportunity to submit testimony on this\nvery important issue, the energy crisis. I would like to bring your\nattention to what I foresee to be a critical problem for small businesses\nand ultimately for the country.\nMany suggestions have been made as to how we can best conserve\nour energy. One example includes limitations on retail merchants use\nof on-premises identification signs. I am referring especially to small\nstore identification signs located on the premises of the business, they\nidentify. These signs use relatively little electricity, and more current\ncould be saved by turning off the lights in the back of the store or in\nthe storeroom, which the small businessman is quite willing to do.\nThe retail merchant is highly dependent upon these signs. In some\ncases thev take the place of a show window. In others they are needed\nto identify the location of a business to a motorist moving at 25 to\n50 miles an hour on the street or highway. People think businesses are\nclosed when their signs are not lighted. Businesses cannot do without\nthem during the hours in which they are open without severe loss of\npatronage.\nAlready merchants have suffered from price controls and a shortage\nin their inventory of goods they will have to sell. To be forced to do\nwithout the illumination of their identification signs during the time\nthey are open, instead of turning off fixtures on the inside, could cause\nthe closing of many retail establishments.\nAfter having met with representatives of small businesses, I have\nconcluded that they are quite willing to cut back on the amount of en-\nergy they use as long as they are allowed to decide where these cut-\nbacks will be made. It seems reasonable that businesses should be\nallowed to decide where to make their sacrifices for the national good.\nI urge that efforts be made to keep small businesses from bearing\nthe burden of discriminatory brunt of the necessary controls on energy\nusage. It might be well, in legislation, to see that curtailment of lighted\nadvertisements not include in-premise business identification signs.\nAddendum B\nThe purpose of my amendment, therefore, is to insure that these small businesses be\ngiven equal consideration in implementation and administration of the conservation\nmeasures to reach our goals. This is not to say that anyone should be totally exempted\nfrom cooperation in saving our energy, for we all must work together. However, in\nimplementing the act, it would seem to be possible to avoid causing undue hardship to\nany one sector of the economy\nThese signs are important to the retail merchants who are highly dependent upon them.\nIn some cases they take the place of store windows. In others they identify the location\nto a motorist moving at 25 or 50 miles an hour on the street or highway. In any event,\nthey are valuable to the storeowners who would be severely hurt if their use were to be\ncurtailed\n2. The Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, chaired by Senator Jackson of\nWashington, considered the emergency energy bill (S. 2589). The initial draft of this\nbill provided for \"restrictions against the use of lighted advertising.\" This language\nwas subsequently deleted by Senator Jackson. The subsequent conference report on\nS. 2589, the National Energy Emergency Act of 1973, at Senator Jackson's request,\nread in part as follows:\nTo the maximum extent practicable, any restrictions on the use of energy shall be designed\nto be carried out in such manner so as to be fair and to create a reasonable distribution of\nthe burden of such restriction on all sectors of the economy, without imposing an un-\nreasonably disproportionate share of such burden on any specific industry, business or\ncommercial enterprise, or on an individual segment thereof and shall give due consider-\nation to the needs of commercial, retail and service establishments whose normal func-\ntion is to supply goods and services of an essential convenience nature during times of\nday other than conventional daytime working hours.\nFinally, while HR 11031 (House version of the National Energy Emergency Act of 1973)\nwas under consideration in the House of Representatives, Rep. Donald Clancy (R) sub-\nmitted testimony to the drafting committee similar to Senator Taft's amendment to the\nSenate bill, and added these comments:\nAfter having met with representatives of small businesses I have concluded that they are\nquite willing to cut back on the amount of energy they use as long as they are allowed to\ndecide where these cutbacks will be made. It seems reasonable that businesses should be\nallowed to decide where to make their sacrifices for the national good.\nI urge that efforts be made to keep small businesses from bearing the burden or discrimi-\nnatory brunt of the necessary controls on energy usage. It might be well, in legislation, to\nsee that curtailment of lighted advertisements not include \"on-premise\" business identifi-\ncation signs.\nThese actions on the part of prominent Congressmen were notice to all concerned that the\nCongress of the United States took full cognizance of the retail merchant's dependence\nupon his on-premise illuminated sign and made clear their intent to see that no selective\nregulation was imposed upon the retailers' business signs.\nFinally, the administrative agency primarily concerned with energy issued a letter which\nfurther spelled out in specific detail the government position for all concerned with drafting\nor implementing regulations affecting on-premise illuminated signs.\n11\nEnergy\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 30, 1976\nDear Mr. Fowler:\nThank you for your letter of September 24\nand the helpful material you enclosed.\nI very much appreciated the opportunity\nof meeting with you and Mr. Tavoulareas\nand am forwarding your materials to the\nappropriate members of the White House\nstaff.\nThank you again for giving us your views.\nSincerely,\nJames M. Cannon\nAssistant to the President\nfor Domestic Affairs\nJ. Edward Fowler\n150 East 42nd Street\nNew York, N.Y. 10017\nFORD LIBRARY is\nJ. EDWARD FOWLER\n150 EAST 42ND STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017\n76 L\n4\n53\nSeptember 24, 1976\nDear Mr. Cannon,\nLast Friday we visited on the subject of the\npending Bills to amend the Export Administration\nAct. Since then we have put together the enclosed\noutline of some of the many reasons why we think\nthe legislation should not be approved. I hope\nthis further clarifies the points we outlined dur-\ning our visit.\nI also enclose a copy of a telegram sent to-\nday by Herb Schmertz, our Vice President for Public\nAffairs, to Representative Rosenthal and Members\nof the House/Senate Conference Committee. That\ntelex sets forth a detailed explanation of the\nreasons underlying the points made in our newspaper\nadvertisement last week. It is intended to clarify\nthe enormous potential for harm to the United States\nwhich could be caused by this legislation.\nFinally, I think you will be interested in the\narticle from Forbes entitled \"How to Legislate a\nDisaster\", also enclosed.\nI do hope these materials will be of some help\nin dealing with this important subject.\nSincerely yours,\nEd Pole\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nEnc.\nfile\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nreturn to Kris\nOctober 2, 1976\nfor pending file\nEnergy\nMEMORANDUM TO:\nGLENN SCHLEEDE\nFROM:\nJIM CANNON Jun\nI would appreciate it very much if you would call\nMr. Bickwit of Senator Glenn's office and tell him\nI\nwould be glad to talk to Senator Glenn about the\nP\niketon plant after he returns from China.\nGERALD R. LIBRARY FORD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nOctober 2, 1976\nMEMO TO:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nALLEN MOORE\nSUBJECT:\nPiketon nuclear plant\nGlenn informs me that the ERDA authorization\nbill did not pass before adjournment. There\nwas, however, a continuing resolution for\nERDA. Glenn is attempting to find out\nwhether or not this has an impact on contin-\nued construction of the Piketon plant. He\nthinks you should hold off talking to\nSenator Glenn's aide (Leonard Bickwit) until\nthis issue is clarified. We will keep you\ninformed orr this.\nFORD LIBRARY is 02\nJOHN GLENN\nCOMMITTEES:\nOHIO\nINTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS\nGOVERNMENT OPERATIONS\nDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\nUnited States Senate\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20510\n1976\nOctober SEP 1, 1976\nMr. James Cannon\nDirector, The Domestic Council\npleane list for\nThe White House\n1600 Pennsylvania Avenue\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nmoney\nDear Mr. Cannon:\nI understand that you are extremely busy at this time,\nbut it has been more than a week since I began trying to\nreach you on a matter of considerable importance to this\noffice. On Monday of this week I sent a copy of the enclosed\narticle to Glen Schleede and asked him to get back to me on\ntwo questions relating to a one-sentence quote in the article.\nYou were quoted as stating, \"Without Congress passing this\nlegislation in this session, this just isn't going to proceed.\"\nIn the context of the article it is clear that \"this legislation\"\nrefers to the proposed Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act and that \"this\"\nin the second clause of the quote refers to the enrichment plant\nin Piketon, Ohio.\nMy two questions are these : 1) Is the quote accurate; and\n2) If so, what does it mean in view of the fact that the proposed\nERDA Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 1977 contains $230 million\nfor the plant and the already-passed Public Works Appropriation\nBill for Fiscal Year 1977 contains $178 million?\nMr. Schleede tells me that you simply have not been able to\nfocus on these questions because of your schedule. In light of\nour great interest in the matter and the straightforwardness of\nthe questions, however, I sincerely hope you will be able to do\nso before the end of the day.\nBest regards.\nYours sincerely,\nProvid Bihit,\nLeonard Bickwit, Jr.\nChief Legislative Assistant\nLB:mh\nCC: Glen Schleede\nFORD LIBRARY 078879\n100109\nAtomic Plant For Piketon\nThreatened By Senators\nBy George Embrey\ntor of the White House Domestic\ners during the construction phase over\nChief, Dispatch Washington Bureou\nCouncil, told The Dispatch he had\na number of years.\nWASHINGTON - President Ford's\npassed on his warning about the\nSENATE MAJORITY leader Mike\ndomestic adviser said Saturday the\nproposed $2.7 billion project to Gov.\nMansfield, D-Montana, tried to get\noposed $2.7 billion addition to the\nJames A. Rhodes.\nGlenn and other objectors to the\nketon, Ohio, atomic energy factory\nFord has made good on his pledge in\nlegislation to agree to a compromise\nust isn't going to proceed\" without a\nColumbus before the June 8 Ohio\nthis week to allow eight hours of\nalled piece of legislation.\nprimary election to push for the\ndebate in the heavily loaded Senate\nSen. John Glenn, D-Ohio, is the\nmassive project north of Portsmouth.\nschedule before Congress adjourns\nder in blocking action in the Senate\nU. S. Rep. William H. Harsha, R-\nOct. 2.\nthe proposed legislation, the Nu-\nPortsmouth, has predicted the project\nGlenn is the leader of a dozen\naur Fuel Assurance Act of 1976:\nat the U. S. atomic plant at Piketon\nJAMES CANNON, executive direc-\nwould employ more than 5,000 work-\nsenators who refused Mansfield's com-\npromise. Glenn says he is not con-\nvinced the legislation has enough\nsafeguards to prevent Arabs from\nobtaining nuclear weapons material.\nAfter succeeding in blocking senate\naction on the legislation, Glenn depart-\ned vith Mansfield for a visit to the\nPeople's Republic of China. Glenn has\nbeen criticized by U.S. Rep. Delbert T.\nLatta, R-Bowling Green, for taking\npart in a \"junket\" which will keep him\nout of the country for the rest of this\nyear's Congress.\nGLENN'S TOP legislative aide, Len\nBeckwit, has assurred reporters that\nother legislation already approved by\nCongress or certain of being enacted\nwould clear the first $255 million Ford\nrequested for preliminary work on the\nPiketon plant.\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nCannon disputes the Glenn-Beckwit\nargument. Cannon said Saturday that\nwithout çongressional action on the\nnow stalled Nuclear Fuel Assurance\nAct, would be jeoparidized.\n\"Without Congress passing this\nlegislation in this session, this just isn't\ngoing to proceed,\" Cannon said.\n\"THERE ARE just too many people\nwho want to block any development of\nnew facilities to provide nuclear fuel,\"\nCannon said.\nThe Piketon plant addition would\nbe the first new facility in the\ngovernment's attempt to assure the\nUnited States of an ample supply of\nnucleur fuel or nuclear power plants to\ngenerate electricity and provide other\nenergy for the foreseeable future.\nCannon explained that unless the\nlegislation is passed before Congress\nquits Oct. 2, the President would have\nto start all over again with the new\nCongress toward getting the necessary\nlegislation.\nCANNON SAID that a strong ally of\nthe Ford administration and will not\nbe around to help next year. Sen. John\nPastore, D-Rhode Island, chairman of\nthe Joint Senate-House Atomic Energy\nCommittee, has pushed for the pro-\nposed Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act, but\nhe is retiring.\nCannon said he is sure President\nFord will win the election Nov. 2 and\ncontinue to press for the Piketon\naddition. But Cannon said Democratic\ncandidate Jimmy Carter, whom Glenn\nis supporting, has questioned whether\nthe U.S. should proceed with develop-\ning nuclear fuel in enrichment facili-\nties such as the Piketon addition.\nCannon said that last week a major\nFrench magazine carried a story that\nFrench government officials viewed\nthe opposition to United States devel-\nopment of new nuclear fuel manufac-\nturing facilities to be such that France\nshould produce nuclear fuel for world\nmarkets.\nCOLUMBUS DISPATCH\nUnited States Senate\nCOMMITTEE ON\nGOVERNMENT OPERATIONS\nWASHINGTON, D.C 20510\nJohn Sleem U.S.S.\nOFFICIAL BUSINESS\nMr. James Cannon\nDirector, The Domestic Council\n2nd Floor, West Wing\nThe White House\n2\nWHITE HOUSE\nPOST # A-4\nOCT E 1976\nProcessed by, we\nRle\nOctober 5, 1976\nAnergy\n1976 OCT 5 PM / 48\nDear Bill:\nOn behalf of Jim Cannon, I would like\nto thank you for the copy of Energy\nPerspectives 2. It will be very\nuseful to both of us.\nSincerely,\nIS!\nGlenn R. Schleede\nAssociate Director\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nDomestic Council\nMr. William L. Fisher\nAssistant Secretary of Interior\nWashington, D. C. 20240\nCC: Jim Cannon\n100511\nGlenn Schleede\nTHE INTERIOR `S\nUnited States Department of the Interior\nOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY\nMarch\n3,\n1849\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20240\nSEP 27 1976\nHonorable James Cannon\nExecutive Director of the\nDomestic Council\nWashington, D. C. 20500\nDear Mr. Cannon:\nOn behalf of the Secretary, I am pleased to\nsend you a copy of our new publication, \"Energy\nPerspectives 2,\" a presentation of major energy\nand energy-related data.\nI believe this report will be helpful in an\nunderstanding and analysis of the current and\nfuture energy situation.\nFORD LIBRARY\nAssistant Secretary\nof the Interior\nEnclosure\nAMERICAN REVOLUTION WIDENTENNAL\n1776-1976\nTM\na\nEnergy\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nINFORMATION\nWASHINGTON\nOctober 12, 1976\n1976 OCT 13 PM 2 10\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nGLENN SCHLEEDE\nSUBJECT:\nOCS LEASING\nI thought you might like to see a flow chart presentation\nof the OCS leasing and development process -- as it now\nstands and as it would have worked had the OCS bill been\nenacted. Fortunately, that bill never made it to the\nPresident's desk.\nI'd like to have the attached flow chart back.\nFORD LIBRARY & GERALD\nAttachment.\nGlenn, is probably not at this going\nto have Irin the a chance next to 20 looh days. as him Why\nduring don't you come 2. back He abould\nit\npost see it Nov of way will D appreciated let him until it he that has\nof the its is to a dance wait to enjoy 101311 Art\nEnergy\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nOctober 14, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJACK MARSH\nGLRALD FORD LIBRARY\nFROM:\nJIM CANNO\nSUBJECT:\nSeptember Jun Letter from\nformer Charles Jonas\nWe have followed up on the letter you received from Charles\nJonas. I am sorry for the delay in getting back to you on\nit.\nBriefly, the situation with respect to Mr. Besser's communica-\ntion to the National Bureau of Standards, Office of Energy\nRelated Inventions, is as follows:\nThe letter was received and given a preliminary screening.\nIt is one of many thousand received by the office over\nthe last few months.\nThe office routinely screens the letters and puts them\ninto three categories according to priority for follow-\nup:\n-- Priority I. Inventions that appear to involve something\nnew and perhaps have some merit for further development.\n-- Priority II. Inventions that may have technical\neconomic merit but are not new. (This is where\nMr. Besser's proposal falls.)\n-- Priority III. Proposals which do not appear worthy\nof further consideration.\nBureau of Standards could not give a good estimate of when\nthey could get back to Mr. Besser's proposal because of\ntheir decision to spend time on the unique ideas that\nappear to have some merit.\nEven though the outlook for attention from the Bureau of\nStandards is bleak, there may be some interest from the\nEnergy Research and Development Administration (ERDA).\nSpecifically:\nThere are three potential program areas in ERDA where\n-2-\nMr. Besser's proposal can be considered. Two of them\nat least have funds available.\nERDA tells us the technology Mr. Besser has in mind\nhas been demonstrated. The question is whether or not\nthe economics make sense. ERDA and/or private industrial\norganizations are already carrying out some demonstration\nprojects but none of them involves a chicken-egg laying\nfacility, and none involve the relatively small scale\nthat Mr. Besser has in mind.\nERDA is willing to consider the proposal further; i.e.,\nevaluate its technical and economic merit.\nEven before ERDA responded to our inquiry based on your\nSeptember 13 memo, ERDA contacted Mr. Jonas and arranged\nfor him to come to ERDA headquarters and discuss his proposal.\nThe ERDA notes on the discussions with Mr. Jonas are\nattached for your information.\nAttachment.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nOctober 11, 1976\nNOTE TO:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nGLEN SCHLEEDE\nSUBJECT:\nSeptember 9, 1976 Letter from former\nCongressman Charles Jonas\nHere is a somewhat belated response to Jack Marsh's\nrequest to you. I'm embarrassed about the delay in\nresponding to him but not the speed with which Mr.\nJonas' request was handled by ERDA. They responded\nvery quickly.\nRECOMMENDATION\nThat you sign the attached memo to Jack Marsh.\nAttachment.\nFORD LIBRARY 078878 9778\n101204\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDATE: 9/16\nTO:\nSchleede\nFROM:\nALLEN MOORE\nSUBJECT:\nACTION\nFYI:\nPladvisise\na call and @ facts\nsent to seamons for\n9/80/76\nCC: Leach\nSchleede\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 13, 1976\nMEMORANDUM TO: JIM CANNON\nFROM:\nJACK MARSH\nJim, attached is a self-explanatory letter from\nformer Congressman Charles Jonas.\nAnything you can do would be appreciated.\ngive\nFORD LIBRARY & GRRALD\nI'd appreciate your\npersonal review 8 this\nThank\nJahn\nCO: Leech\nSchloade\nSeptember 13, 1975\nDear Charles:\nMany thanks for your letter of\nSeptember 9 concerning the aumerous\nproblems that Charles Besser has en-\ncountered with regard to his invention.\nI an taking the liberty of forwarding\nyour letter to appropriate people here\nat the White House, I certainly hope\nour afforts prove fruitful. You should\nbe receiving further word on this matter\nin the vary near future.\nWith warmest personal regards, I\nremain,\nSincerely,\nJohn 0. 'Marsh, Jr.\nCounsellor to the President\nThe Nonorable Charles R. Jonas\nNeinstein, Sturges, Odom,\nBigger and Jonas\nFORD LIBRARY is 038470\nAttorneys at Law\n810 Baxter Street Cul-de-Sac\nCharlotte, North Carolina 28202\ncb\nCC: JCannon\nWEINSTEIN, STURGES, Одом. BIGGER AND JONAS. P.A.\nATTORNEYS AT LAW\n810 BAXTER STREET CUL-DE-SAC\nMAURICE A.WEINSTEIN\nCHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28202\n704-333-0511\nWILLIAM W. STURGES\n-. LAFONTINE ODOM\nSeptember 9, 1976\nCABLE ADDRESS\nRICHARD A. BIGGER, JR.\n\"CHARLEX\"\nERIC A.JONAS\nJOHN J. DOYLE. JR.\nALLAN W. SINGER\nCHARLES R. JONAS\nROBERT D. HOFFMAN\nOF COUNSEL\nThe Honorable John 0. Marsh\nOffice of the President\nThe White House\nWashington, D. C.\nDear Jack:\nHere is another example of bureaucratic foot-dragging.\nYou may or may not remember that on the plane from Charlotte\nto Washington on May 20, 1975, I was having a visit with the\nPresident and sounded off about the frustrations the business\ncommunity. feels in not being able to get any decisions out of\nthe bureaucracy. He told me to send him some examples through\nDon Rumsfeld, and I sent one that would have knocked his eyes\nout if the President had ever seen it. But unfortunately it\ngot lost being shuffled about in the FEA and nothing, absolutely\nnothing, ever happened as a result of the example being sent\nforward.\nNow I have another one and am taking the liberty of reciting\nit to you in the hope that you might be willing to put it in the\nhands of someone at the White House who may be instrumental in\ngetting us a decision.\nThere is a man in Charlotte named Charles S. Besser, who\ninvented the famous Besser furnace. He sold more than a million\ndollars worth of these furnaces until he went broke because he\ncontracted to supply a 200 or 300 hundred house development with\nfurnaces at a price less than it cost him to manufacture them,\ndue to steep and unforeseen increases in the cost of labor and\nmaterials after he signed the contract. He has now invented, and\nThe Honorable John O. Marsh\nSeptember 9, 1976\nPage Two\nhas an application for a patent pending, a continuous system for\nproducing methane gas. He has erected a small pilot plant in his\nbackyard, and I personally have witnessed his conversion of human\nwaste into methane gas which he uses to light and heat his home,\nand the by-product from which is liquid fertilizer from which he\nhas managed to extract the odor. He has also constructed a\nlaboratory in his garage which he has used to demonstrate his\nability to produce gas from chicken and COW manure. Various people\nhave witnessed his demonstrations and all with whom I have talked\nare agreed that he does indeed have a process which in the future\nmight go a long way toward solving our energy problem. The\nliterature on this subject indicates that various research organiza\ntions in a number of universities around the country are working on\nthis same idea, although Besser tells me that no one has used the\ncontinuous process he has invented and for which he has a patent\npending.\nBesser's present trouble is that he has exhausted all of his\nresources in working on this invention, building the pilot plant\nand the laboratory. I personally know that he put a second mortgage\non his house and lot to raise the money to build the laboratory\nearlier this year. He did that because he had a real good prospect\nof making a deal with a chicken producer in which he would get rid\nof the manure and at the same time produce enough gas to meet his\nrequirements at his plant. The prospect of that deal fell through\nsimply because the chicken producer was not willing to put up the\nperhaps $100,000 it would cost to build a plant of a size sufficient\nto take care of his needs; but he told Mr. Besser that if he could\nobtain a grant to finance the construction of a commercial-type pilo\nplant in which he could demonstrate the economic feasibility of his\nprocess, this man not only would contract to have him install a syst\nat his place, but could assure Besser that he would have calls to\ninstall similar plants all over the United States.\nNow I lead up to the purpose in writing you. Mr. Besser has\nbeen trying since early May to have the Office of Energy-Related\nInventions in the National Bureau of Standards, U. S. Department of\nCommerce, make an evaluation of his process. Congressman Jim Martir\nhas written Mr. George P. Lewett, Chief of that office, any number\nof times urging him to proceed with the evaluation and all Mr. Marti\nhas received from Mr. Lewett is that the materials submitted by Mr.\nBesser will be \"considered in evaluating\ninvention\".\nI\nmyself\nThe Honorable John O. Marsh\nSeptember 9, 1976\nPage Three\nwrote Mr. Lewett on June 23 a three-page letter in which I outlined\nwhat Mr. Besser has done, and strongly urged Mr. Lewett to send a\nrepresentative to Charlotte to take a look on the grounds at the\nprocess. I informed them that he could come from Washington to\nCharlotte in an hour and a quarter, and that we would meet the plane\nand take his representative out for a demonstration and put him back\non the plane, and he would be back in Washington before the end of\nthe day. I gave him my telephone number and Mr. Besser's number and\nrequested him to inform either of us if he would send someone here t\nwitness a demonstration. That letter was dated June 23, 1976, and t\ndate I have not had any answer to it.\nDesperate for some decision on his application for a research\nor demonstration grant, Mr. Besser lost heart over the inability of\nCongressman Martin or me to get any decision out of Mr. Lewett so in\nearly July, he wrote Senator Ted Kennedy, and explained what he had\ndeveloped and solicited his help. Senator Kennedy replied quite\npromptly and informed Mr. Besser that he had inquired at the Office\nof Energy-Related Inventions which is evaluating the feasibility of\nhis invention for ERDA, and had been informed that a reevaluation\nwould be initiated within two weeks and should be completed by the\nmiddle of September. He rèquested Mr. Besser to communicate with\nhim again if by the middle of September he had not received the\nresults of the evaluation apparently going on in the Office of ERI.\nMr. Besser has also called my attention to a recent statement\nby Senator Gaylord Nelson pointing out the importance of moving\nvigorously in this field as an anti-pollution and energy-producing\nmeasure. There ought to be someone in the Administration interested\nenough in the possibilities involved in this process to get these\npeople in the Office of Energy-Related Inventions at the Bureau of\nStandards off of dead center so that Besser can see the results of\ntheir evaluation. I honestly cannot understand why it would take\nfive or six months to do this or why Mr. Lewett would ignore my\nletter and the suggestion that he send someone here to take a view\nof what Besser has done. The literature on this subject is unanimou\nin support of this program, as previously stated; and in my judgment\nthe creation of gas from human and other wastes is going to be one\nof the waves of the future. I would like to see this Administration\nThe Honorable John 0. Marsh\nSeptember 9, 1976\nPage Four\nget some credit for inaugurating or stimulating this effort. The\nfollowing quotation is from a recent issue of Intelligence Digest:\n\"Hong Kong has begun to export solid human waste to\nChina where it is being used for fertilizer and to\nproduce methane gas for lighting homes.\"\nIf they can do this in China, why don't we try it in the United\nStates, particularly since we are rapidly running out of natural\ngas? This is especially important if that professor of agricultural\nengineering at Iowa State University was correct when he recently\nstated that \"For every year we burn natural gas as a fuel, we lose\n16 years' supply of gas as a raw material.\"\nI became interested in this matter when Mr. Besser came to\nme with a request that I see if I couldn't help expedite his efforts\nto obtain a grant from the Federal Government to continue his\nexperimentation and build a pilot plant from which he can demonstrat\nthe economic feasibility of his process. So far I have gotten nowhe\nnot even a reply to a letter as above stated, and so far Congressmar\nMartin has failed in his efforts to get a decision, and as a last\nresort I am appealing to you to see if someone at the White House\nwill not demonstrate sufficient interest in this matter to give a\nhelping hand.\nYours sincerely,\nCharles SA R. Jonas\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\nCRJ/jg\n& DEVELOPMENT NOIJN ADMINISTRA\nUNITED STATES\nENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20545\nUSA\nOctober 4, 1976\nMr. Glenn Schleede\nThe White House\nDear Mr. Schleede:\nIn the latest follow-up to your September 20, 1976, request,\nattached are rough notes summarizing Mr. Charles R. Jonas'\nvisit with us on September 24, 1976.\nPlease note that the next action is for Mr. Jonas to send\nus more technical information on Mr. Besser's process, to\nwhich Mr. Petzrick (Office of Commercialization) and\nMr. Ward (Office of Solar Energy) have agreed to informally\nrespond.\nSincerely,\nIn Glenn K. Ellis\nOffice of Energy-Related\nInventions Program\nAttachments\nAMERICAN REVOLUTION INFORMATION\n1776-1976\n@\n7 Oct 1976\nMr. Glenn Schleede\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nI regret the delay in responding. As you note from the attached, I prepared\nan informal response at the time of Mr. Jonas visit, but, for some unknown\nreason here, it was never sent.\nPaul Petzrick, Ofc of Commercialization, advises today that we are presently\nawaiting the substantive technical information we will need to evaluate\nMr. Besset's process. Mr. Loftin, Mr. Besser, and Mr. Jonas have been\nso informed by Petzrick. The material received earlier from the Congressman's\noffice, according to Petzrick, was not substantial.\nAgain, I am sorry for the delay.\nG Glenn (376-4119) Ellis Ell.\nLOWENS & DEVELOPMENT NOIAN VALINISTR\nUNITED STATES\nENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20545\nUSA\nMemorandum for the Record\nMEETING WITH MR. CHARLES R. JONAS\nSeptember 24, 1976 - Mr. Jonas called at approximately 11:30 a.m.\nseeking additional information in response to his interest in helping\nhis client, Mr. Charles S. Besser, in the development of a process\nfor generating methane gas from animal wastes. I identified the\nthree specific potential areas of 1) R&D, Roscoe Ward in SED;\n2) Demonstration, George Rial, AFE; and 3) Commercialization, Paul\nPetzrick in the Office of Commercialization. I had previously arranged\nfor Petzrick to meet with Jonas, so I suggested that Jonas meet with\nme at ERDA since he was in the vicinity.\nDuring our meeting, I gave Mr. Jonas the additional background infor-\nmation I had gathered and several \"guides\" for preparing proposals\nwhich he requested. I also expressed Richard Sutz' regrets at not\nhaving been able to meet with him, since he had been called to a\nmeeting unexpectedly. We then met at Petzrick's office with Dick\nHertzberg and Petzrick for the better part of an hour.\nIn summary, the potential of the process depends entirely upon its\neconomic feasibility, since the technology is well known, and the\neconomic feasibility could not be assessed since Mr. Jonas had few\ntechnical details. It appeared also that any potential for it would\nlogically fall into Roscoe Ward's area, since the process is still\nin the R&D stage. I, therefore, called Ward, whom I had alerted\nbefore Mr. Jonas arrived, who came to the meeting.\nAction: It was left that Mr. Jonas would obtain from Besser (and\nsend to Petzrick) a duplicate of the submission that Besser had\nearlier sent Lewett in NBS-OERI. Petzrick would coordinate exam-\nination of the proposal with Ward and INR-OERI, and at the least,\nbetween us, we could possibly suggest some features to reduce the\ncosts of Besser's proposed demo plant. Jonas mentioned a figure of\n$200K that was estimated for a demo plant to take care of the\nwastes from a large chicken egg-laying facility, which Petzrick\nthought was probably too high. (Several North Carolina businessmen\nare interested in Besser's process, but not to the extent of putting\nup front money for a demo plant.) Ward indicated that, though he\ncould not give a formal evaluation, he could advise Besser within\n7 - 10 days whether or not his proposal would be of further interest\nREVOLUTION to SED.\nBICENTENNIAL\nGlenn Glen K. Ellis\nElli\nAMERICAN\nOffice of Energy-Related\nInventions Program\n1776-1976\nTH\n376- 376-4309 4509\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 20, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR: THE HONORABLE ROBERT SEAMANS\nFROM:\nGLENN Glenn SCHLEEDE\nSUBJECT:\nATTACHED LETTER\nWould you please have someone check\ninto this one and give me a call today\nor tomorrow with the facts on the\nsituation so that we can respond\nto Jack Marsh and Mr. Jonas.\nAttachment\nGun Ellist ERDA 376-4119\nFORD LIBRARY à SERVICE\n5.16445 Gover,\nWEINSTEIN, STURGES. OpoM. BIGGER AND JONAS. P.A.\nATTORNEYS AT LAW\n810 PAXTER STREET CUL-DE-SAC\nPAUPICE S.WEINSTON\nCHARLOTTE NORTH CAROLINA 28202\n704-333.054\nW. STUDIES\nODDY\nSeptember 9, 1976\nCASHI ADDRES\nCHARD A. BIGGER. JR.\nEASC A.JONAS\nJOHN J. DOYLE. JR.\nALLAN W. SINGER\nCHARLES R. JONAS\nFOBIRT D. HOFFMAN\nOF COUNSEL\nThe Honorable John 0. Marsh\nOffice of the President\nThe White House\nWashington, D. C.\nDear Jack:\nHere is another example of bureaucratic foot-dragging.\nYou may or may not remember that on the plane from Charlotte\nto Washington on May 20, 1975, I was having a visit with the\nPresident and sounded off about the frustrations the business\ncommunity. feels in not being able to get any decisions out of\nthe bureaucracy. He told me to send him some examples through\nDon Rumsfeld, and I sent one that would have knocked his eyes\nout if the President had ever seen it. But unfortunately it\ngot lost being shuffled about in the FEA and nothing, absolutely\nnothing, ever happened as a result of the example being sent\nforward.\nNow I have another one and am taking the liberty of recitin\nit to you in the hope that you might be willing to put it in the\nhands of someone at the White House who may be instrumental in\ngetting us a decision.\nThere is a man in Charlotte named Charles S. Besser, who\ninvented the famous Besser furnace. He sold more than a million\ndollars worth of these furnaces until he went broke because he\ncontracted to supply a 200 or 300 hundred house development with\nfurnaces at a price less than it cost him to manufacture them,\ndue to steep and unforeseen increases in the cost of labor and\nmaterials after he signed the contract. He has now invented, and\nThe Honorable John O. Marsh\nSeptember 9, 1976\nPage Two\nhas an application for a patent pending, a continuous system for\nproducing methane gas. He has erected a small pilot plant in his\nbackyard, and I personally have witnessed his conversion of human\nwaste into methane gas which he uses to light and heat his home,\nand the by-product from which is liquid fertilizer from which he\nhas managed to extract the odor. He has also constructed a\nlaboratory in his garage which he has used to demonstrate his\nability to produce gas from chicken and COW manure. Various people\nhave witnessed his demonstrations and all with whom I have talked\nare agreed that he does indeed have a process which in the future\nmight go a long way toward solving our energy problem. The\nliterature on this subject indicates that various research organiza\ntions in a number of universities around the country are working on\nthis same idea, although Besser tells me that no one has used the\ncontinuous process he has invented and for which he has a patent\npending.\nBesser's present trouble is that he has exhausted all of his\nresources in working on this invention, building the pilot plant\nand the laboratory. I personally know that he put a second mortgage\non his house and lot to raise the money to build the laboratory\nearlier this year. He did that because he had a real good prospect\nof making a deal with a chicken producer in which he would get rid\nof the manure and at the same time produce enough gas to meet his\nrequirements at his plant. The prospect of that deal fell through\nsimply because the chicken producer was not willing to put up the\nperhaps $100,000 it would cost to build a plant of a size sufficien\nto take care of his needs; but he told Mr. Besser that if he could\nobtain a grant to finance the construction of a commercial-type pil\nplant in which he could demonstrate the economic feasibility of his\nprocess, this man not only would contract to have him install a sys\nat his place, but could assure Besser that he would have calls to\ninstall similar plants all over the United States.\nNow I lead up to the purpose in writing you. Mr. Besser has\nbeen trying since early May to have the Office of Energy-Related\nInventions in the National Bureau of Standards, U. S. Department of\nCommerce, make an evaluation of his process. Congressman Jim Marti\nhas written Mr. George P. Lewett, Chief of that office, any number\nof times urging him to proceed with the evaluation and all Mr. Mart\nhas received from Mr. Lewett is that the materials submitted by Mr.\nBesser will be \"considered in evaluating\ninvention\".\nI\nmyself\nThe Honorable John 0. Marsh\nSeptember 9, 1976\nPage Three\nwrote Mr. Lewett on June 23 a three-page letter in which I outlined\nwhat Mr. Besser has done, and strongly urged Mr. Lewett to send a\nrepresentative to Charlotte to take a look on the grounds at the\nprocess. I informed them that he could come from Washington to\nCharlotte in an hour and a quarter, and that we would meet the plane\nand take his representative out for a demonstration and put him back\non the plane, and he would be back in Washington before the end of\nthe day. I gave him my telephone number and Mr. Besser's number and\nrequested him to inform either of us if he would send someone here t\nwitness a demonstration. That letter was dated June 23, 1976, and t\ndate I have not had any answer to it.\nDesperate for some decision on his application for a research\nor demonstration grant, Mr. Besser lost heart over the inability of\nCongressman Martin or me to get any decision out of Mr. Lewett so ir\nearly July, he wrote Senator Ted Kennedy, and explained what he had\ndeveloped and solicited his help. Senator Kennedy replied quite\npromptly and informed Mr. Besser that he had inquired at the Office\nof Energy-Related Inventions which is evaluating the feasibility of\nhis invention for ERDA, and had been informed that a reevaluation\nwould be initiated within two weeks and should be completed by the\nmiddle of September. He rèquested Mr. Besser to communicate with\nhim again if by the middle of September he had not received the\nresults of the evaluation apparently going on in the Office of ERI.\nMr. Besser has also called my attention to a recent statement\nby Senator Gaylord Nelson pointing out the importance of moving\nvigorously in this field as an anti-pollution and energy-producing\nmeasure. There ought to be someone in the Administration intereste\nenough in the possibilities involved in this process to get these\npeople in the Office of Energy-Related Inventions at the Bureau of\nStandards off of dead center so that Besser can see the results of\ntheir evaluation. I honestly cannot understand why it would take\nfive or six months to do this or why Mr. Lewett would ignore my\nletter and the suggestion that he send someone here to take a view\nof what Besser has done. The literature on this subject is unanimo\nin support of this program, as previously stated; and in my judgmen\nthe creation of gas from human and other wastes is going to be one\nof the waves of the future. I would like to see this Administratio\nThe Honorable John 0. Marsh\nSeptember 9, 1976\nPage Four\nget some credit for inaugurating or stimulating this effort. The\nfollowing quotation is from a recent issue of Intelligence Digest:\n\"Hong Kong has begun to export solid human waste to\nChina where it is being used for fertilizer and to\nproduce methane gas for lighting homes.\"\nIf they can do this in China, why don't we try it in the United\nStates, particularly since we are rapidly running out of natural\ngas? This is especially important if that professor of agricultural\nengineering at Iowa State University was correct when he recently\nstated that \"For every year we burn natural gas as a fuel, we lose\n16 years' supply of gas as a raw material.'\nI became interested in this matter when Mr. Besser came to\nme with a request that I see if I couldn't help expedite his effort:\nto obtain a grant from the Federal Government to continue his\nexperimentation and build a pilot plant from which he can demonstrat\nthe economic feasibility of his process. So far I have gotten nowh\nnot even a reply to a letter as above stated, and so far Congressmar\nMartin has failed in his efforts to get a decision, and as a last\nresort I am appealing to you to see if someone at the White House\nwill not demonstrate sufficient interest in this matter to give a\nhelping hand.\nYours sincerely,\nCharles R. Jonas\nFORD LIBRARY is GERALD\nCRJ/jg\nCC: Leach\nSchleede\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nf\nSeptember 13, 1976\n276\n7.32\nMEMORANDUM TO: JIM CANNON\nFROM:\nJim, attached is a selt-explanatory letter from\nformer Congressman Charles Jonas.\nJACK June MARCH\nAnything you can do would be appreciated.\njain.\nI'd appreciate your\npersonal review 8 this\nThanks.\nyou\n01\nCC: Leach\nSchleede\nSeptember 13, 1976\n\" a a 1976 AM \"> 32\nDear Charles:\nMany thanks for your letter of\nSeptember 9 concerning the numerous\nproblems that Charles Besser has en-\ncountered with regard to his invention.\nI an taking the liberty of forwarding\nyour letter to appropriate people here\nat the White House. I certainly hope\nour efforts prove fruitful. You should\nbe receiving further word on this matter\nin the very near future.\nWith warmest personal regards, I\nremain,\nSincerely,\nJohn 0. Marsh, Jr.\nCounsellor to the President\nThe Nonorable Charles R. Jonas\nWeinstein, Sturges, Odom,\nBigger and Jonas\nAttorneys at Law\n810 Baxter Street Cul-de-Sac\nCharlotte, North Carolina 28202\ncb\nCC: JCannon\nWEINSTEIN, STURGES, ODOM. BIGGER AND JONAS, P.A.\nATTORNEYS AT LAW\n810 BAXTER STREET CUL-DE-SAC\nMAURICE A.WEINSTEIN\nCHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28202\n704-333-0511\nWILLIAM W. STURGES\nT. LAFONTINE ODOM\nRICHARD A. BIGGER, JR.\nSeptember 9, 1976\nCABLE ADDRESS:\n\"CHARLEX\"\nERIC A.JONAS\nJOHN J. DOYLE, JR.\nALLAN W. SINGER\nCHARLES R. JONAS\nROBERT D. HOFFMAN\nOF COUNSEL\nThe Honorable John O. Marsh\nOffice of the President\nLIBRARY\nThe White House\nWashington, D. C.\nDear Jack:\nHere is another example of bureaucratic foot-dragging.\nYou may or may not remember that on the plane from Charlotte\nto Washington on May 20, 1975, I was having a visit with the\nPresident and sounded off about the frustrations the business\ncommunity feels in not being able to get any decisions out of\nthe bureaucracy. He told me to send him some examples through\nDon Rumsfeld, and I sent one that would have knocked his eyes\nout if the President had ever seen it. But unfortunately it\ngot lost being shuffled about in the FEA and nothing, absolutely\nnothing, ever happened as a result of the example being sent\nforward.\nNow I have another one and am taking the liberty of reciting\nit to you in the hope that you might be willing to put it in the\nhands of someone at the White House who may be instrumental in\ngetting us a decision.\nThere is a man in Charlotte named Charles S. Besser, who\ninvented the famous Besser furnace. He sold more than a million\ndollars worth of these furnaces until he went broke because he\ncontracted to supply a 200 or 300 hundred house development with\nfurnaces at a price less than it cost him to manufacture them,\ndue to steep and unforeseen increases in the cost of labor and\nmaterials after he signed the contract. He has now invented, and\nThe Honorable John O. Marsh\nSeptember 9, 1976\nPage Two\nhas an application for a patent pending, a continuous system for\nproducing methane gas. He has erected a small pilot plant in his\nbackyard, and I personally have witnessed his conversion of human\nwaste into methane gas which he uses to light and heat his home,\nand the by-product from which is liquid fertilizer from which he\nhas managed to extract the odor. He has also constructed a\nlaboratory in his garage which he has used to demonstrate his\nability to produce gas from chicken and COW manure. Various people\nhave witnessed his demonstrations and all with whom I have talked\nare agreed that he does indeed have a process which in the future\nmight go a long way toward solving our energy problem. The\nliterature on this subject indicates that various research organiza-\ntions in a number of universities around the country are working on\nthis same idea, although Besser tells me that no one has used the\ncontinuous process he has invented and for which he has a patent\npending.\nBesser's present trouble is that he has exhausted all of his\nresources in working on this invention, building the pilot plant\nand the laboratory. I personally know that he put a second mortgage\non his house and lot to raise the money to build the laboratory\nearlier this year. He did that because he had a real good prospect\nof making a deal with a chicken producer in which he would get rid\nof the manure and at the same time produce enough gas to meet his\nrequirements at his plant. The prospect of that deal fell through\nsimply because the chicken producer was not willing to put up the\nperhaps $100,000 it would cost to build a plant of a size sufficient\nto take care of his needs; but he told Mr. Besser that if he could\nobtain a grant to finance the construction of a commercial-type pilot\nplant in which he could demonstrate the economic feasibility of his\nprocess, this man not only would contract to have him install a syste\nat his place, but could assure Besser that he would have calls to\ninstall similar plants all over the United States.\nNow I lead up to the purpose in writing you. Mr. Besser has\nbeen trying since early May to have the Office of Energy-Related\nInventions in the National Bureau of Standards, U. S. Department of\nCommerce, make an evaluation of his process. Congressman Jim Martin\nhas written Mr. George P. Lewett, Chief of that office, any number\nof times urging him to proceed with the evaluation and all Mr. Martir\nhas received from Mr. Lewett is that the materials submitted by Mr.\nBesser will be \"considered in evaluating\ninvention\". I myself\nThe Honorable John O. Marsh\nSeptember 9, 1976\nPage Three\nwrote Mr. Lewett on June 23 a three-page letter in which I outlined\nwhat Mr. Besser has done, and strongly urged Mr. Lewett to send a\nrepresentative to Charlotte to take a look on the grounds at the\nprocess. I informed them that he could come from Washington to\nCharlotte in an hour and a quarter, and that we would meet the plane\nand take his representative out for a demonstration and put him back\non the plane, and he would be back in Washington before the end of\nthe day. I gave him my telephone number and Mr. Besser's number and\nrequested him to inform either of us if he would send someone here tc\nwitness a demonstration. That letter was dated June 23, 1976, and to\ndate I have not had any answer to it.\nDesperate for some decision on his application for a research\nor demonstration grant, Mr. Besser lost heart over the inability of\nCongressman Martin or me to get any decision out of Mr. Lewett so in\nearly July, he wrote Senator Ted Kennedy, and explained what he had\ndeveloped and solicited his help. Senator Kennedy replied quite\npromptly and informed Mr. Besser that he had inquired at the Office\nof Energy-Related Inventions which is evaluating the feasibility of\nhis invention for ERDA, and had been informed that a reevaluation\nwould be initiated within two weeks and should be completed by the\nmiddle of September. He requested Mr. Besser to communicate with\nhim again if by the middle of September he had not received the\nresults of the evaluation apparently going on in the Office of ERI.\nMr. Besser has also called my attention to a recent statement\nby Senator Gaylord Nelson pointing out the importance of moving\nvigorously in this field as an anti-pollution and energy-producing\nmeasure. There ought to be someone in the Administration interested\nenough in the possibilities involved in this process to get these\npeople in the Office of Energy-Related Inventions at the Bureau of\nStandards off of dead center so that Besser can see the results of\ntheir evaluation. I honestly cannot understand why it would take\nfive or six months to do this or why Mr. Lewett would ignore my\nletter and the suggestion that he send someone here to take a view\nof what Besser has done. The literature on this subject is unanimous\nin support of this program, as previously stated; and in my judgment\nthe creation of gas from human and other wastes is going to be one\nof the waves of the future. I would like to see this Administration\nThe Honorable John 0. Marsh\nSeptember 9, 1976\nPage Four\nget some credit for inaugurating or stimulating this effort. The\nfollowing quotation is from a recent issue of Intelligence Digest:\n\"Hong Kong has begun to export solid human waste to\nChina where it is being used for fertilizer and to\nproduce methane gas for lighting homes.\"\nIf they can do this in China, why don't we try it in the United\nStates, particularly since we are rapidly running out of natural\ngas? This is especially important if that professor of agricultural\nengineering at Iowa State University was correct when he recently\nstated that \"For every year we burn natural gas as a fuel, we lose\n16 years' supply of gas as a raw material.\"\nI became interested in this matter when Mr. Besser came to\nme with a request that I see if I couldn't help expedite his efforts\nto obtain a grant from the Federal Government to continue his\nexperimentation and build a pilot plant from which he can demonstrate\nthe economic feasibility of his process. So far I have gotten nowhe:\nnot even a reply to a letter as above stated, and so far Congressman\nMartin has failed in his efforts to get a decision, and as a last\nresort I am appealing to you to see if someone at the White House\nwill not demonstrate sufficient interest in this matter to give a\nhelping hand.\nYours sincerely,\nFORD\nCharles R. Jonas\nLIBRARY\nCRJ/jg\nACTION\nDOMESTIC COUNCIL\nFROM:\nSchleede\n1976 OCT 16 PM 5 45\nSUBJECT:\nDraft Presidential memo to heads of departments\nand agencies on the Federal Energy Management\nProgram (FEMP)\nDate: 10/16/76\nCOMMENTS:\nQuern: We should staff this out quickly\nafter you have had a chance to\nreview it. It looks good to me.\nDECISION:\nO.K. to staff\nOther\nto ourB B\nGERALD F. LIBRARY FORD\nwho Due\n?\n2\nACTION:\nDate:\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nJIM CANNON\nSUBJECT:\nFederal Energy Management Program (FEMP)\nAttached for your consideration is a proposed memorandum\nto Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies which:\nAnnounces your Federal energy conservation goal for\nFY 1977 of using no more energy than was actually\nused during FY 1975;\nSignals your continuing interest in the Federal Energy\nManagement Program (FEMP) ;\nNotifies agencies that FEA has been assigned lead\nresponsibility for coordinating this effort.\nThe FEMP was started in July 1973 with the setting of a\ntarget for energy conservation within the Executive Branch,\nquarterly reporting by agencies, and coordination and\nreporting of results by FEA.\nThe agencies have been responsive, particularly the\nDepartment of Defense which is by far the largest energy\nuser. FEA indicates that energy savings during FY 1976\nreached the equivalent of 285,000 barrels of oil per day.\nThe attached memorandum has been recommended by\nSecretary Richardson, Frank Zarb and OMB.\nRECOMMENDATION\nThat you sign the memorandum attached at TAB A.\nSTATES FORD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES\nSUBJECT:\nFederal Energy Management Program (FEMP)\nSince 1973, the Executive Branch of the Federal Government has\ntaken the lead in conserving energy. In fiscal year 1976,\nFederal agencies' energy conservation efforts resulted in\nsavings equivalent to over 285,000 barrels of oil per day.\nThese impressive results are due to dedicated and serious\nefforts to conserve energy. I commend you and your employees\nfor fine achievement and the example it sets for all Americans.\nFor FY 1977, I am establishing a Federal energy conservation\ngoal of using no more energy than was actually used during\nFY 1975. I am asking each of you to: (1) establish specific\nplans for energy savings during the coming year, and (2) examine\nall of your facilities and operations for both short and longer\nterm energy conservation potential and undertake, within your\nexisting budgetary levels, cost-effective projects wherever\npossible.\nI am also directing the Administrators of the Federal Energy\nAdministration and the General Services Administration to\nwork with you to establish individual agency targets and to\nidentify energy conservation projects so as to assure that\noverall Executive Branch goals will be achieved. In addition,\nthe Office of Management and Budget will provide guidance\nconcerning budgeting procedures for projects and activities\nin FY 1979 and beyond.\nFORD LIBRARY &\nDate: 10/18/76\nFrom the desk of The Administrator\nTo:\nJim Cannon\n1976 OCT 18 PM 3 57\nFor your information.\nFrank\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\nFruch -\nyou should to\nexpoud\nTuis Federal Energy Administration Jun\nRoom 3400\nExt.\n6081\nEnergy\nUP-080\n(MONDALE)\n(BY SARA FRITZ)\nDENVER (UPI) DEMOCRATIC VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WALTER\nMONDALE SAID TODAY THE FORD ADMINISTRATION HAS NO COHERENT ENERGY\nPOLICY.\nIN AN ADDRESS TO THE WESTERN STATES WATER AND POWER CONSUMERS\nCONFERENCE, MONDALE SAID PRESIDENT FORD HAS NOT MADE 8 \"SINGLE\nSTATEMENT ON THIS RANGE DE ISSUES\" DURING THE CAMPAIGN.\n\"THE TRUTH IS THAT THE FORD ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY HAS BEEN ONE\nWITHOUT VISION, WITHOUT LEADERSHIP, WITHOUT SENSE OF PURPOSE,' HE\nSAID.\nMONDALE OUTLINED SPECIFIC STEPS JIMMY CARTER WOULD TAKE TO DEVELOP\nENERGY RESOURCES WHILE PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT AND SAID THE\nADMINISTRATION HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE STATES AS PARTNERS IN\nENERGY DEVELOPMENT.\nTHE STEPS INCLUDE: HORIZONTIAL DIVESTITURE OF THE MAJOR OIL\nCOMPANIES; ENACTMENT OF A \"MEANINGFUL\" LAW REGULATING STRIP MINING;\nREORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ENERGY-RELATED FUNCTIONS INTO ONE\nCABINET LEVEL AGENCY, AND A SHIFT TOWARD INCREASING COAL PRODUCTION\nAS OIL AND GAS SUPPLIES DWINDLE.\nMONDALE SAID THE GOVERNMENT MUST BE REORGANIZED BECAUSE 20\nSEPARATE AGENCIES NOW DEAL WITH ENERGY MATTERS RESULTING IN NOTHING\nBUT \"CONFUSION, SQUABBLING, DUPLICATION AND INCONSISTENCY.'\nHE SAID HORIZONTAL DIVESTITURE PROHIBITING AN OIL FIRM FROM\nOWNING OTHER FORMS OF ENERGY SUCH AS COAL MINES OR NATURAL GAS LINES\n-- IS NECESSARY BECAUSE \"THE GOVERNMENT HAS GIVEN AWAY, SOLD OR\nLEASED, THE NATION'S RESOURCES FOR THE GAIN OF THE MAJOR OIL\nCOMPANIES. WHEN YOU ANYONE T00 MUCH POWER IN THE ECONOMY. THEY'LL\nABUSE IT.\"\nMONDALE ALSO SAID A DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTATION WOULD \"DRAW THE LINE\"\nWHEN DIL-PRODUCING NATIONS ATTEMPT TO DICTATE PRICES WITHIN THE\nUNITED STATES. HE SAID HE BELIEVES IN A FREE MARKET, BUT \"WE HAVE A\nRIGHT TO CIVILIZE THOSE PRICES.\"\nHE ALSO PROMISED TO ENCOURAGE DISCOVERY OF NEW ENERGY SOURCES,\nSUCH AS SOLAR POWER, PUT PRICE CEILINGS ON NEW NATURAL GAS AND\nDEVELOP AN IMMEDIATE CONSERVATION PROGRAM USING MASS TRANSIT IN BOTH\nRURAL AND URBAN AREAS.\nUPI 10-18 - 02:06 PED\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\n10/8/8\nACTION\nDOMESTIC COUNCIL\nFROM:\nSchleede\nSUBJECT:\nPresidential memo to heads of departments &\nagencies (FEMP) on Federal Energy Management Program\nDate: 10/27/76\nCOMMENTS:\nPer your instruction, this memo was\nstaffed for comment.\nQuern and I recommend approval.\nA.\n2020 LIBRARY \"II\nACTION:\nDate:\nTEMP\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nOctober 28, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nJIM CANNON Jun\nSUBJECT:\nFederal Energy Management Program (FEMP)\nAttached for your consideration is a proposed memorandum\nto Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies which:\nAnnounces your Federal energy conservation goal for\nFY 1977 of using no more energy than was actually\nused during FY 1975.\nSignals your continuing interest in the Federal Energy\nManagement Program (FEMP).\nNotifies agencies that FEA has been assigned lead\nresponsibility for coordinating this effort.\nThe FEMP was started in July 1973 with the setting of a\ntarget for energy conservation within the Executive Branch,\nquarterly reporting by agencies, and coordination and\nreporting of results by FEA.\nThe agencies have been responsive, particularly the\nDepartment of Defense which is by far the largest energy\nuser. FEA indicates that energy savings during FY 1976\nreached the equivalent of 285,000 barrels of oil per day.\nThe attached memorandum has been reviewed and concurred in\nby Secretary Richardson, Frank Zarb, OMB, Phil Buchen,\nMax Friedersdorf, Alan Greenspan, Robert Hartmann,\nJohn Marsh, and William Seidman.\nRECOMMENDATION\nThat you sign the memorandum attached at TAB A.\nFURD LIBRARY is GERALD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES\nSUBJECT:\nFederal Energy Management Program (FEMP)\nSince 1973, the Executive Branch of the Federal Government has\ntaken the lead in conserving energy. In fiscal year 1976,\nFederal agencies' energy conservation efforts resulted in\nsavings equivalent to over 285,000 barrels of oil per day.\nThese impressive results are due to dedicated and serious\nefforts to conserve energy. I commend you and your employees\nfor fine achievement and the example it sets for all Americans.\nFor FY 1977, I am establishing a Federal energy conservation\ngoal of using no more energy than was actually used during\nFY 1975. I am asking each of you to: (1) establish specific\nplans for energy savings during the coming year, and (2) examine\nall of your facilities and operations for both short and longer\nterm energy conservation potential and undertake, within your\nexisting budgetary levels, cost-effective projects wherever\npossible.\nI am also directing the Administrators of the Federal Energy\nAdministration and the General Services Administration to\nwork with you to establish individual agency targets and to\nidentify energy conservation projects so as to assure that\noverall Executive Branch goals will be achieved. In addition,\nthe Office of Management and Budget will provide guidance\nconcerning budgeting procedures for projects and activities\nin FY 1979 and beyond.\nABRAHAM RIBICOFF, CONN., CHAIRMAN\nJOHN L. MC CLELLAN, ARK.\nCHARLES H. PERCY, ILL.\nHENRY M. JACKSON, WASH.\nJACOB K. JAVITS, N.Y.\nLOMUND S. MUSKIE, MAINE\nEnergy\nWILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., DEL.\nLEE METCALF, MONT.\nBILL BROCK, TENN.\nJAMES B. ALLEN, ALA.\nLOWELL P. WEICKER, JR., CONN.\nLAWTON CHILES, FLA.\nSAM NUNN, GA.\nUnited States Senate\nJOHN GLENN, OHIO\nRICHARD A. WEGMAN\nCHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR\nCOMMITTEE ON\nGOVERNMENT OPERATIONS\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20510\n976 23 02\nOctober 27, 1976\nMr. James Cannon\nDirector, The Domestic Council\nThe White House\n1600 Pennsylvania Avenue\nFile\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nDear Mr. Cannon:\nI am writing to request that you respond in writing to the\nquestions asked you by my Legislative Assistant, Len Bickwit in his\nletter to you of October 1. I would appreciate receiving your\nanswer no later than the close of business on October 29.\nIt is a disappointment to me that I have to address these\nquestions to you personally when they were previously raised by\nmy staff in my absence. If our objective is to promote cooperation\nbetween our respective branches of government, surely that purpose\nwas not served by your reluctance to cooperate with my staff.\nIt is also disappointing to read certain statements attributed\nto you which will inevitably lead to inferences which are misleading.\nIn the attached article from the Columbus Dispatch you are quoted\nas saying \"Had the junior Senator from Ohio stayed there (in the\nSenate) and worked on the energy legislation and it had passed,\nwe could have a full year to proceed.\" While that quote--assuming\nit was accurately reported--does not specifically so state, it\nsuggests (1) that serious damage has been done the Portsmouth\nproject by recent Senate action and (2) that my presence in the\nSenate could have avoided that result.\nQuite aside from the fact that my scheduling and decisions\non where I concentrate my efforts at any particular time are not\nyour responsibility to pass judgment on, both you and I know\nthat propositions (1) and (2) above are not the case. I therefore\nwish you would avoid making statements--again assuming you have\ndone so--that suggest that they are.\nSincerely,\nJuly Glenn Glem\nStates Senator\n10280 4\nDISPATCH\nCOLUMBUS, 0.\nP.M. CIRC. 222,350\n369\nOCT-12-76\nPiketon Project Funds To Run Out\nBy Ge *ge Embrey\nthe continuing resolution expires\nIt now will be up to the administra-\n\"Had the junior senator from Ohio\nChief, Dispote 'ashington Bureau\nMarch 31.\ntion to go back to the new Congress\nstayed there (in the Senate) and\nWASHINGTON A top White\nAlso, the legislation Ford requested\nafter it gets back to work Jan, 4 to get\nworked on the energy legislation and it\nHouse official said nesday that con-\nfor ERDA and the separate nuclear\nmore money authorized not only for\nhad passed, we could have a full year to\ngressional funding fy. the proposed\nfuel assurance bill would have autho-\nthe Piketon factory expansion but for\nproceed,\" Cannon said.\n$2.7 billion \"add-on\" 10 the Piketon,\nrized a full year of work on the first\nthe other new projects in the $6 billion\nCANNON BRUSHED aside com-\nOhio, atomic energy fa. tory runs out\nphase of the Piketon factor and $255\nERDA bill.\nplaints from Glenn's staff that he\nMarch 31, 1977, and ha. a spending\nmillion.\nceiling of $50 million.\nSolar energy, synthetic fuels and\nwould not personally respond to their\nTHUS, INSTEAD of having only $50\nJames Cannon, executi e director\nother ERDA projects are stalled, and\ntelephone calls. Cannon's staff mem-\nmillion until March 31, the Ford\nof the White House domes council,\nfunded only temporarily.\nbers took the calls, he said.\nadministration would have had all of it,\nspoke out after aides to U.S. Sen. John\nand Harsha and Glenn said they felt\nCOME MARCH 31, if there is not\n\"I will be glad to talk to the senator\nH. Glenn, D-Ohio, tried to shit. possible\nnecessary to get the giant project\nfurther congressional action, the Pike-\n(Glenn) when he gets back from\nblame for a delay on the mammoth,\nunder way.\nton project must stop, Cannon said.\nChina,\" Cannon said.\njob-rich project to President Ford.\nCANNON SAID Ford meant exactly\nwhat he said in the debate last\nWednesday in San Francisco — that his\nadministration is fully committed to\nthe $2.7 billion expansion of the\nPiketon factory and its production of\nfuel for electric-generating atomic\nenergy plants.\nCannon had criticized Glenn for\nblocking Senate action on atomic\nenergy legislation and then going off\non a trip to the Peoples Republic of\nGERALD\nR.\nChina while the Senate still had time to\nact on the legislation.\nFORD\nThe legislation, including the an-\nnual authorization bill for the budget\nof the agency that runs the Piketon\nLIBRARY\nfactory, the U.S. Energy and Research\nAdministration (ERDA), was not enact-\ned before Congress recessed for the\nyear.\nU.S. REP. William H. Harsha, R-\nPortsmouth, and aides to Glenn report-\ned last week that the resolution\nCongress passed will let ERDA contin-\nue spending its $6 billion appropria-\ntions at the 1977 budget year level\ntemporarily, at least.\nBut Cannon explained Tuesday that\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nOctober 11, 1976\nFile\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nJAMES CONNOR\nFROM:\nGLENN Jimi SCHLEEDE\nSUBJECT:\nOhio Newspapers Concerning Portsmouth\nAttached are the background materials related to the\nquestions raised by the two Ohio newspapers concerning\nPortsmouth.\nTAB I are the questions raised and the documents being\ncited.\nTAB II is the proposed response.\nThe immediate questions I have are:\nCan we go further than the proposed response in terms of a\ncommitment to proceed with Portsmouth?\nWould a call to the reporters from one of you be better\nthan one from me?\nAttachment.\nNFA\nERDA authorid\nFORD LIBRARY & GERALD\ndirected\nTAB I\nQUESTIONS RAISED BY MR. DOUGLAS LOWENSTEIN, DAYTON OHIO NEWS\nSenator Glenn apparently has contacted reporters from\nthe Cox Newspaper chain and:\n-- Supplied them with a copy of Mr. Beckwit's letter of\nOctober 1, 1976 to Jim Cannon with an enclosed article\nfrom The Dispatch (TAB A)\n-- Indicated that the President's statement about Portsmouth\nduring the October 6, 1976/debate was in conflict\nwith (a) the President's July 29, 1976/letter to\nCongressman Harsha and (b) JMC quote -- because the\nstatement during the debates was not commissioned on\npassage of the NFAA whereas the two references cited\nwere so conditioned.\nMr. Lowenstein would like answers to the following\nquestions:\nIs it correct to say that the Administration, prior to\nthe October 6 debate, pegged the expansion of Portsmouth\n(passage of NFAA) ?\n-- Is the Administration thinking about asking for recision\nof 1977 appropriations ($178.8 million) since the NFAA\ndid not pass?\n-- Is the President committed to spend the $2.7 billion\nrequested for expansion of the add-on for the\nPortsmouth plant?\nTAB A\nJOHN GLENN\nCOMMITTEES:\nOHIO\nINTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS\nGOVERNMENT OPERATIONS\nDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\nUnited States Senate\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20510\nOctober 1, 1976\nMr. James Cannon\nDirector, The Domestic Council\nThe White House\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n1600 Pennsylvania Avenue\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nDear Mr. Cannon:\nI understand that you are extremely busy at this time,\nbut it has been more than a week since I began trying to\nreach you on a matter of considerable importance to this\noffice. On Monday of this week I sent a copy of the enclosed\narticle to Glen Schleede and asked him to get back to me on\ntwo questions relating to a one-sentence quote in the article.\nYou were quoted as stating, \"Without Congress passing this\nlegislation in this session, this just isn't going to proceed. \"\nIn the context of the article it is clear that \"this legislation\"\nrefers to the proposed Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act and that \"this\"\nin the second clause of the quote refers to the enrichment plant\nin Piketon, Ohio.\nMy two questions are these : 1) Is the quote accurate; and\n2) If so, what does it mean in view of the fact that the proposed\nERDA Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 1977 contains $230 million\nfor the plant and the already-passed Public Works Appropriation\nBill for Fiscal Year 1977 contains $178 million?\nMr. Schleede tells me that you simply have not been able to\nfocus on these questions because of your schedule. In light of\nour great interest in the matter and the straightforwardness of\nthe questions, however, I sincerely hope you will be able to do\nSO before the end of the day.\nBest regards.\nYours sincerely,\nProvid Bichit,\nLeonard Bickwit, Jr.\nChief Legislative Assistant\nLB:mh\nCC: Glen Schleede\nAtomic Plant For Piketon\nThreatened By Senators\nGLENN'S TOP legislative aide, Len\nBy George Embrey\nBeckwit, has assurred reporters that\nChief, Disporch Washington Bureow\nother legislation already approved by\nCongress or certain of being enacted\nWASHINGTON - President Ford's\nwould clear the first $255 million Ford\nop domestic adviser said Saturday the\nrequested for preliminary work on the\nroposed $2.7 billion addition to the\nPiketon plant.\niketon, Ohio, atomic energy factory\nCannon disputes the Glenn-Beckwit\njust isn't going to proceed\" without a\nargument. Cannon said Saturday that\nalled piece of legislation.\nwithout congressional action on the\nSen. John Glenn, D-Ohio, is the\nnow stalled Nuclear Fuel Assurance\nader in blocking action in the Senate\nAct, would be jeoparidized.\nthe proposed legislation, the Nu-\n'Without Congress passing this\neaur Fuel Assurance Act of 1976:\nlegislation in this session, this just isn't\nJAMES CANNON, executive direc-\ngoing to proceed,\" Cannon said.\n\"THERE ARE just too many people\ntor of the White House Domestic\nwho want to block any development of\nFORD\nCouncil, told The Dispatch he had\nnew facilities to provide nuclear fuel,\"\n&\npassed on his warning about the\nCannon said.\nproposed $2.7 billion project to Gov.\nThe Piketon plant addition would\nJames A. Rhodes.\nbe the first new facility in the\ngovernment's attempt to assure the\nGERALD\nFord has made good on his pledge in\nUnited States of an ample supply. of\nColumbus before the June 8 Ohio\nnucleur fuel or nuclear power plants to\nprimary election to push for the\ngenerate electricity and provide other\nmassive project north of Portsmouth.\nenergy for the foreseeable future.\nU.S. Rep. William H. Harsha, R-\nPortsmouth, has predicted the project\nCannon explained that unless the\nat the U. S. atomic plant at Piketon\nlegislation is passed before Congress\nwould employ more than 5,000 work-\nquits Oct. 2, the President would have\nto start all over again with the new\nCongress toward getting the necessary\ners during the construction phase over\nlegislation.\na number of years.\nSENATE MAJORITY leader Mike\nCANNON SAID that a strong ally of\nMansfield, D-Montana, tried to get\nthe Ford administration and will not\nGlenn and other objectors to the\nbe around to help next year. Sen. John\nlegislation to agree to a compromise\nPastore, D-Rhode Island, chairman of\nthis week to allow eight hours of\nthe Joint Senate-House Atomic Energy\ndebate in the heavily loaded Senate\nCommittee, has pushed for the pro-\nschedule before Congress adjourns\nposed Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act, but\nhe is retiring.\nOct. 2\nCannon said he is sure President\nGlenn is the leader of a dozen\nFord will win the election Nov. 2 and\ncontinue to press for the Piketon\nsenators who refused Mansfield's com-\naddition. But Cannon said Democratic\npromise. Glenn says he is not con-\ncandidate Jimmy Carter, whom Glenn\nvinced the legislation has enough\nis supporting. has questioned whether\nsafeguards to prevent Arabs from\nthe U.S. should proceed with develop-\nobtaining nuclear weapons material.\ning nuclear fuel in enrichment facili-\nAfter succeeding in blocking senate\nties such as the Piketon addition.\naction on the legislation, Glenn depart-\nCannon said that last week a major\ned with Mansfield for a visit to the\nFrench magazine carried a story that\nPeople's Republic of China. Glenn has\nFrench government officials viewed\nbeen criticized by U.S. Rep. Delbert T.\nthe opposition to United States devel-\nLatta, R-Bowling Green, for taking\nopment of new nuclear fuel manufac-\npart in a \"junket\" which will keep him\nturing facilities to be such that France\nout of the country for the rest of this\nshould produce nuclear fuel for world\nyear's Congress.\nmarkets.\nTAB B\nTHE MODERATOR: President Ford?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Governor Carter brags about\nthe unemployment during Democratic Administrations\nand condemns the unemployment at the present time. I\nmust remind him that we are at peace and during the period\nthat he brags about unemployment being low, the United\nStates was at war.\nLet me correct one other comment that Governor\nCarter has made. I have recommended to the Congress that\nwe develop the uranium enrichment plant at Portsmouth,\nOhio, which is a publicly-owned U.S. Government facility,\nand have indicated that the private program which would\nfollow on in Alabama is one that may or may not be\nconstructed, but I am committed to the one at Portsmouth,\nOhio.\nThe Governor also talks about morality in\nforeign policy. The foreign policy of the United\nStates meets the highest standards of morality. What is\nmore moral than peace, and the United States is at\npeace today. What is more moral in foreign policy than\nfor the Administration to take the lead in the World\nFood Conference in Rome in 1974, when the United States\ncommitted six million metric tons of food, over 60 percent\nof the food committed for the disadvantaged and under-\ndeveloped nations of the world?\nThe Ford Administration wants to eradicate\nhunger and disease in our underdeveloped countries\nthroughout the world. What is more moral than for the\nUnited States under the Ford Administration to take\nFORD VIBRARY\nthe lead in Southern Africa, in the Middle East? Those\nare initiatives in foreign policy which are of the\nhighest moral standards, and that is indicative of\nthe foreign policy of this country.\nTHE MODERATOR: Mr. Frankel, a question for\nPresident Ford.\nMR. FRANKEL: Mr. President, can we stick\nwith morality? For a lot of people it seems to cover a\nbunch of sins.\nMr. Nixon and Mr. Kissinger used to tell us\nthat instead of morality we had to worry in the world\nabout living with and letting live all kinds of Govern-\nments that we really didn't like -- North and South\nKorean dictators, Chilean facists, Chinese Communists,\nIranian emperors and so on.\nTAB C\nJuly 29, 1976\nDear Bill:\nI understand that you have a concern about our\nintentions to build the enrichment facility add-on\nat Portsmouth, Ohio. I can assure you that in the\ncontext of the Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act, it is\nour firm intention, subject, of course, to the\ncompletion of the required environmental procedures,\nto complete that plant.\nMoreover, the Portsmouth plant does not conflict\nwith other additions to our enrichment capacity\nand our progress on it will not depend upon\ncompletion of any other facilities.\nI hope that these comments give you the assurances\nthat you require.\nSincerely,\nGERALD R. FORD\nThe Honorable William H. Harsha\nU. S. House of Representatives\nBERADO, FORD\nWashington, D. C*20515\nGRF:JEC/ec\nCopy\nTAB II\nPROPOSED RESPONSE\nThe President's intention of proceeding with an add-on\nto the Portsmouth enrichment facility and, subject to\nenvironmental requirements to complete that plant, is\nreflected in the following series of actions:\n1. The NFAA submitted to the Congress on June 26, 1975,\nby the President, included a section which would have\nauthorized continued work on construction, planning\nand design for the expansion of government-owned\nenrichment facilities.\n2. On May 5, 1976, the President requested approval of\n$12.6 million for continuation of design work for the\nPortsmouth add-on during the remainder of FY 1976\nand the Transition Quarter.\n3. On May 26, 1976, the President announced that he would\naccept and encourage passage of a revised NFAA which\nNFAA\nhad been reported unanimously by the Joint Committee\non Atomic Energy on May 14, 1976. Section 4 of that\nbill authorized and directed ERDA to initiate construction\nplanning and design, and construction and operation of\nan add-on to an existing government-owned uranium\nenrichment facility and the report accompanying the\nbill made clear to the facility at Portsmouth was the\nwordbon\none to be expanded.\n4. On June 4, 1976, the President requested $178.8 million\nfor FY 1977 to proceed with design, planning and\nprocurement of long lead-time construction for the\nPortsmouth plant.\n5. On July 12, 1976, the President signed the Public Works\nAppropriations Bill appropriating the $178.8 million for\nPortsmouth work.\nOn September 3, 1976, ERDA Deputy Adminustrator Fri, in\nresponding to questions posed by Senator Glenn concerning\nthe need for additional enrichment capacity, pointed out\nthat there was no conflict between the desire to proceed\nwith privately-owned uranium enrichment capacity and the\nPortsmouth add-on plant because \"the add-on enrichment plant\nat Portsmouth, Ohio will be used to fulfill existing ERDA\ncontacts in the most economically, efficient manner and to\nconserve uranium resources. \"\n-2-\nThe current status of the authorization for proceeding with\nthe Portsmouth plant is that the continuing resolution* passed\nby the Congress on October 1, 1976, authorized ERDA to\ncontinue work on the Portsmouth plant through March 31,\n1977 at the rate of spending provided for in 1977 Appropriation\nActs ($178.8 million for all of FY 1977).\nIn response to the specific questions posed by Mr. Lowenstein:\n-- The President's statement during the October 6, 1976\ndebates is consistent with the actions the President\nhas already taken to proceed with the Portsmouth plant.\n-- The Administration has no intention of asking for a\nrecision of the $178.8 million in FY 1977 appropriations.\n-- Funding requirements for FY 1978 for work on the Portsmouth\nadd-on are now being considered as part of the President's\nFY 1978 budget.\n-- Subject to ERDA's completion of the requested environ-\nmental reviews, the President is committed to the\ncompletion of the add-on facility at Portsmouth, Ohio.\n*\nH.R. Resolution 1105, not yet signed. Last day for action\nOctober 18.\nNFAA would lew curturns\nwork $255 ya w/o but M.\nexpected 1950 my 3/31/79\ntile\nACTION\nJMC REQUEST\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nK.\nOctober 29, 1976\nput\nInformation\"\nMEMORANDUM FOR: JIM CANNON\nFROM:\nGEORGE W. HUMPHREYS\nSUBJECT:\nBonneville Power Administration/\nAlumax Aluminum Plant - Oregon\nAttached is a suggested memo from you to the President\nadvising him of the actions you took concerning the\nBonneville Power Administration issue in Oregon.\nFORD LIBRARY & SERVIC area\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nINFORMATION\nOctober 28, 1976\nMEMORANDUM TO:\nTHE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nSUBJECT:\nJIM CANNON Jine\nBonneville Power Administration/\nAlumax Aluminum Plant - Oregon\nOur people in Oregon advise that it is very important\nfor you to move positively to resolve problems surrounding\ndelays in building an aluminum plant in Umatilla County,\nOregon.\nIn 1966, the Bonneville Power Administration agreed\ncontractually to provide power to Alumax for a new plant\nto be constructed in Astoria, Oregon. The contract was\nlater replaced in 1975 to accomodate the movement of the\nproposed site inland to Umatilla County.\nThe Port of Astoria, et al, brought suit to block the\nmove, alleging that the contract was invalid because no\nenvironmental impact statement had been prepared. The\nU.S. District Court ruled that the contract was valid, but\nunenforceable until the EIS was prepared. The court\nordered both a site-specific EIS and a programmatic EIS\ncovering the BPA's role in supplying power throughout its\nservice area.\nThe Justice Department appealed the decision, but BPA\nbegan the EIS process, estimated to cost $4 million.\nCompletion of the EIS is expected by the fall of 1977. The\nappeal is not expected to be heard for six months, with a\ndecision possibly two years away.\nSenator Dole is scheduled to be in Oregon today, October 28,\nand we expect him to be asked about this issue.\nFORD LIBRARY is\n-2-\nThe Senator has been informed that you have instructed\nSecretary Kleppe to review the entire issue and to take\nwhatever appropriate steps are required to speed up the\nEIS process and to eliminate any other procedural\nimpediments so that the plant construction can begin as\nsoon as possible.\nTom agrees with this approach and has been informed of\nsome actions that he can take that will reduce the delay\ntime.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nINFORMATION\nOctober 28, 1976\nMEMORANDUM TO:\nTHE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nJIM CANNON Jin\nSUBJECT:\nBonneville Power Administration/\nAlumax Aluminum Plant - Oregon\nOur people in Oregon advise that it is very important\nfor you to move positively to resolve problems surrounding\ndelays in building an aluminum plant in Umatilla County,\nOregon.\nIn 1966, the Bonneville Power Administration agreed\ncontractually to provide power to Alumax for a new plant\nto be constructed in Astoria, Oregon. The contract was\nlater replaced in 1975 to accomodate the movement of the\nproposed site inland to Umatilla County.\nThe Port of Astoria, et al, brought suit to block the\nmove, alleging that the contract was invalid because no\nenvironmental impact statement had been prepared. The\nU.S. District Court ruled that the contract was valid, but\nunenforceable until the EIS was prepared. The court\nordered both a site-specific EIS and a programmatic EIS\ncovering the BPA's role in supplying power throughout its\nservice area.\nThe Justice Department appealed the decision, but BPA\nbegan the EIS process, estimated to cost $4 million.\nCompletion of the EIS is expected by the fall of 1977. The\nappeal is not expected to be heard for six months, with a\ndecision possibly two years away.\nSenator Dole is scheduled to be in Oregon today, October 28,\nand we expect him to be asked about this issue.\nJRD\nLIBRARY\n-2-\nThe Senator has been informed that you have instructed\nSecretary Kleppe to review the entire issue and to take\nwhatever appropriate steps are required to speed up the\nEIS process and to eliminate any other procedural\nimpediments so that the plant construction can begin as\nsoon as possible.\nTom agrees with this approach and has been informed of\nsome actions that he can take that will reduce the delay\ntime.\nCC: Schleede\nEneyg\nFEDERAL\nENERGY\nFEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20461\nADMINISTRATION\nOctober 29, 1976\n976 OUT OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR\nMEMORANDUM TO THE ENERGY RESOURCES COUNCIL\nFROM:\nFRANK ZARB, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR\nz\nSUBJECT:\nSUMMARY OF MINUTES, ERC MEETING,\nOCTOBER 28, 1976\n1. Mid-Term Technologies Update\nERDA briefed the Council on the potential mid-term\n(1985-2000) impacts of energy technology. Expansion\nof existing sources, the development of new sources\nand conservation by increasing the efficiency of\nfuel use were addressed. ERDA also outlined its\nlevel of funding and its approach to current and\nfuture research and development. Council discussion\nfocused on the need for increased reliance on coal,\noil and gas during the 1985-2000 period if alter-\nnative technologies are unsuccessful, the need for\nstimulating public awareness of energy issues, the\nuncertainties in underwriting the massive capital\nrequirements of the new technologies, and the\nrelative emphasis given to new technologies.\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n2. Energy Program Update\nFEA outlined the progress made by the Administration\nand the 94th Congress in implementing the President's\nenergy program. There were many more conservation\nmeasures while on the supply side Congress has made\nlittle progress. FEA estimated that if fully imple-\nmented, the currently authorized portions of the\nPresident's program would hold oil imports to about 7\nmillion barrels per day by 1985; imports could be\nreduced to about 4 million barrels per day if the\nCongress authorizes the remainder of the program.\nDeregulation of natural gas prices was singled out as\nthe action most needed to accomplish the reduced oil\nimport objectives.\n110/04"
}