Page images
PDF
EPUB

Senator BARTLETT. Does this mean, then, in addition to the 1 billion savings on a 10 percent basis, that you would be able or you would anticipate additional energy savings or not?

Mr. HEYE. It is all inclusive.

Senator BARTLETT. In other words, a 10 percent savings would be for 1 million.

Mr. HEYE. That is right.

Senator BARTLETT. Is that considered by the CAB to be a maximum sensible savings that could be expected?

Mr. HEYE. We have not answered that specific question at this point. And our Bureau of Operating Rights is in the process of looking at the whole national system with the idea of trying to get an idea as to how much of a cutback we can reasonably expect to achieve and still maintain a viable system.

Senator BARTLETT. When do vou expect to have those figures?
Mr. HEYE. That is a good question.

Senator BARTLETT. Can you make those available to this committee when you have them?

Mr. HEYE. Senator, 10 to 14 days, it looks like. We will try for that.

Senator BARTLETT. What savings in gallons per day would be saved by what you would consider a proper reduction in speed? In other words, balancing your savings of fuel, versus your increased cost. meeting your airline problems.

Mr. HEYE. We do not have an answer at this point, Senator. We will try to get an answer, if we can and supply it to you, if that would be agreeable.

Senator BARTLETT. Can you give me any kind? I would still like a more precise figure. But I would like to get a feel of how much we are talking about. Would it be as much as 10 percent?

Mr. HEYE. We do not have it in terms of gallons. This is from an order of last May. It savs, for example, United Airlines points out that an ECA fan jet flight from Chicago to Los Angeles operating at a speed of mach 0.80 would consume 1.200 pounds less fuel than one operated at mach 0.82, yet the mach 0.80 would be only 4 minutes slower than the mach 0.82 operation.

I do not know the breakout in terms of gallons that would be. Senator BARTLETT. Then, we are talking about this and we are considering it has some fairly significant impact.

Mr. HEYE. Definitely when you consider that if this were done on a national basis.

Senator BARTLETT. Could you give us those figures as soon as they are available?

Mr. HEYE. We will try to work un a set.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator FANNIN. I was just going to ask one question. Is that all right?

Senator JOHNSTON. All right. We have another panel with a number of people.

Senator FANNIN. Does the FAA or the CAB have control over pleasure flights? If we are short on fuel, and we wanted to eliminate pleasure flights, and you were asked to do so, would you have that authority? Or would the FAA or CAB have the authority?

Mr. HEYE. At this point in time, we do not.

Senator FANNIN. Thank you.

Senator JOHNSTON. Gentlemen, the Chair wishes to thank each of you on behalf of the committee. You were very patient, first to wait for so long from the 11:30 starting time, and then to sit here for so long. We appreciate it very much and we look forward to having a representative from each of your agencies for tomorrow, particularly.

The next panel will consist of Mr. P. N. Gammelgard senior vice president for environmental and public affairs, the American Petroleum Institute; Mr. John Miller, president, Independent Petroleum Association of America; Carl Bagge, president, National Coal Association; W. Donham Crawford, president, Edison Electric Institute; E. Douglas Kenna, president, National Association of Manufacturers. We would like at the same table for the environmental group to appear along with the consumer group and Mr. Lee White, chairman of the Energy Policy Tack Force of the Consumer Federation of America. I hope we can all get at the table, gentlemen.

Gentlemen, we are proceeding in inverse order. Mr. Lee White, the chairman of the Energy Policy Task Force of the Consumer Federation of America.

Mr. White, do you have a written statement?

STATEMENT OF HON. LEE C. WHITE, CHAIRMAN, THE ENERGY POLICY TASK FORCE, CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA

Mr. WHITE. No. And I do not have a microphone either.

Senator JOHNSTON. Mr. White is a former chairman of the Federal Power Commission.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a prepared statement. If it is agreeable to speak very briefly, then I would have to respond to any questions and I may say that customarily I do have a prepared statement. But this is fairly short notice. There is no possible way we could have complied with the committee's normal requirements of having advance papers.

In a very general sense the groups that I represent, I should make it clear the groups I represent are a loose coalition.

Senator FANNIN. I wonder if Mr. White would pull the microphone a little closer to him.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you. The coalition I represent is basically 20 organizations banded together in an organization known as the Energy Policy Task Force.

We operate under the aegis of the Consumer Federation of America and have some very large membership organizations. Included, for example, are the American Public Gas Association, the American Public Power Association, the World Electric Cooperative Association, the National Farmers Organization, the National Farmers Union, United Automobile Workers, IBEW, the CIO, the League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Consumers Union Cooperative League-I think most of them-there are a few others but I think you get the flavor of the group.

Our whole purpose in forming is to attempt to put into these debates and in the discussion, not only for Congressmen and the public, but the consumer's viewpoint.

We recognize that there is something presumptuous about trying to speak for consumers in this country. They are quite diverse. We do not claim to conduct any particular type of survey. It is still everybody's view.

What we have tried to do is meet with our groups to find out what their basic views are and to express them here. We do very much appreciate the opportunity to comment on this legislation, which is obviously of great importance.

Basically, we find the legislation S. 2589 to be a very constructive proposal. It has some items in it, I think, that might be modified slightly, but as a whole we think the thrust is quite in the right direction, quite good, and I think it is a tribute to the committee that you are responding not only to the circumstances of the day, of the minute, but also to the urging of President Nixon last night.

There are some points I should like to make. One has to do with an item I gather was discussed earlier today in the hearings that has to do with the deregulation of natural gas. It is not in Committee Print No. 2. I don't know that it will be, but may I suggest as vigorously as I know how that I think that is not an appropriate item to be considered in this particular emergency legislation. I will be glad to amplify that if there is reason to do so, for any members of the committee.

Next I would note the consumers are asked to do quite a bit by this proposal. I think that most of us across the country are prepared to do quite a bit. We are asked to change our lifestyle somewhat in the way of heating our homes and in the way of the automobiles that we use, transportation generally, we are asked to hold off somewhat the achievement of environmental objectives.

On that may I say the way it is drafted, Committee Print No. 2, is requiring individual case-by-case decision.

We are also, I think, asking something of industries in the country. We are asking them to cut back. There are, I believe, however, some things we ought to ask of the basic energy industry, particularly the petroleum industry.

I think one of the most frustrating experiences for Government is to find itself in this particular situation where properly this bill focuses quite a bit on the demand side but I think you ought to spend some time on the supply side as well, and use whatever short-term techniques there are for not only spreading the shortage around but increasing the supply.

Testimony has been submitted to the Antitrust Subcommittee of the Senate suggesting that there is quite a bit of oil and gas that has been discovered in the Gulf of Mexico which has not been marketed. Obviously, that information is a matter of public record and available to this committee.

I would hope that we would encourage if not absolutely insist that the Interior Department do everything within its power to require that oil and gas do find their way into the market. If there are legitimate explanations or perhaps the inability of a pipeline to bring gas ashore, then we ought to do something to see that pipelines are constructed, if the volumes of gas are sufficient.

I am not suggesting there may not be some valid explanation, but what I am suggesting is that there is an awful lot of oil and gas that

could be brought forth if we would but do so. So I think when we are asking the citizens of this country to make a sacrifice, we ought to insist everything ought to be done by the petroleum industry that can be done to ameliorate the supply side and I note, too, there is nothing in S. 2589 which talks about price for all fuels.

I would hope that in our response to our tight, tough situation, and it is that, we would not overlook the need to protect the consumers of this country.

If there is, for example, an early freeze in Florida and all of a sudden there aren't many oranges, the price of orange juice skyrockets. We can get along without orange juice, or we can drink less of it. Or if we want to and we can afford it, we can buy it. But I don't think that ought to be the standard we ought to use when we are talking about energy.

Energy is entirely too essential to our national health and well-being, our safety, and national security, at this stage with the shortage to rely exclusively on the marketplace to determine the price.

The Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 is still in effect. I would hope if the Economic Stabilization Act which inspires this particular act which runs for a year, that the committee would have woven into this bill a provision to protect consumers.

I don't think the consumers should be subsidized by industry, but by the same token I don't think industry should or would want to take advantage of the situation to make exess, unconscionable profits.

So I would hope that you would take note if not in the bill then in the committee report and perhaps instruct the Cost of Living Council that that end of it ought to be watched as well.

On the question of naval reserves, I note the way the bill is drafted, it limits those reserves for the Department of Defense. I would hope in this emergency situation that it would not necessarily be so limited. There are valid military reasons with which I am not familiar. I would hope the committee would focus on that, but my own somewhat uninformed judgment is that it ought to be all treated the same.

One other aspect of the naval reserves provision I would like to make note of, is how it is going to be done. Those reserves are owned by the people of this country. I think it is incumbent on the committee to consider how it will have those reserves developed and put into the marketplace, if indeed they do go into the marketplace.

It is probably essential that it be done through contract, through some existing privately owned corporation. If that is the way it is to be done, I would hope that the custodian of those reserves, I believe it is now the military, would be instructed by the committee in this bill to do so, to see to it that the benefits go down to the taxpayer and to the owner of that.

If I were drafting this bill, I would also want to insist that that particular type of petroleum reserves which are owned by the people have a preference woven into it for independent refiners.

When that last boat comes here from the Middle East, and I don't know whether the spigot will be turned back on, but when the last boat comes, there will be a noticeable drop in the amount of crude oil available in the United States for the refineries now using it. And I have a pretty good case, a pretty good guess, the refineries are going to find themselves without crude. So I hope you gentlemen, when you

are marking up this legislation, will weave in the preference for independent refiners, not only for this particular reserve, but also from the royalty reserves.

And as long as I am at it, let me go to another pitch I have made on occasion that I think may be appropriate here, and that is, we are permitting

Senator JOHNSTON. When you say the royalty reserves, you mean the OCS?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. I don't know if they have all been made available to independent refineries, and I gather it is discretionary. I would like to see it woven into your legislation.

Senator JOHNSTON. Go ahead, Mr. White, excuse me.

Mr. WHITE. If all of the royalty reserves are being made available to assist the independent refineries, I was not aware of that, I am glad to hear that is the case. If it is not the case, I would strongly urge that it be a part of the committee's bill.

Going back to that basic theme that I mentioned, we have asked a great deal of the people, the President has asked it, and I hope we will be responsive.

I would think that when we are making available benefits to an industry, one of the things being the right to bid on the oil and gas deposits, and they are all on public lands, and the other is a waiver of fees on imports that come into this country.

It seems to me we ought to insist as a condition for petroleum countries, corporations, to participate in those benefits, that they will undertake to do a few things the Congress and the Government believes is in the national interest. One of them, I think, is the allocation agreed on the basis that will promote and preserve and keep the independents as a competitive force in our petroleum marketing arrangement in this country.

Senator JOHNSTON. Actually, the independent refiners and the independent distributors are pretty well beyond the scope of this bill. I think the petroleum allocation bill was intended to apply that, and it just came out of conference yesterday.

I share your view. We have got to do more to protect the independent refiners. As a matter of fact, we have got a real problem with those that are in the process of building and construction right now, to assure them a source of crude.

I think that is probably beyond the scope of this bill.

Mr. WHITE. I have not vet seen the result of the comments on the mandatory allocation bill. I do hope that will solve that problem.

May I suggest here in this emergency legislation which I think will zip through the U.S. Congress and indeed, ought to, it is the time to look at some of these things.

Because, as I suggested, we are asking a great deal, and I would believe we ought to ask a great deal of those who are in the industry as well, and I don't mean to imply by the suggestion that perhaps they are not doing everything that ought to be done. But why should we leave that to chance?

As long as you are legislating and you are making it possible, we hope to provide the fairest treatment in a tough situation. that we not insist that we secure as much cooperation from the industry as we

sibly can get from them, and I would make it as tough as possible.

« PreviousContinue »