Today, the need for such a policy has become of paramount importance to maintaining our energy-intensive economy. Unless there is an immediate public resolve to meet the impending energy crisis through the adoption of a national energy policy, the nation's welfare will be imperiled. We are no longer operating in a timeframe which offers us the luxury of further studying the energy situation. The national welfare dictates that we must embark upon a reasonable energy program at the earliest possible moment.

As part of a comprehensive national energy policy, the National Coal Association urges that the following general policy options be implemented.

The United States must make a firm commitment to maintain primary reliance on domestic energy sources, including strict limitations on the amount of energy permitted to come from foreign sources.

Government decision-making affecting energy demand and supply should be coordinated within a permanent legislative committee and an executive department.

Balanced federal funding of fuel research, expecially involving the adequate production and effective utilization of fossil fuels, is imperative.

Competitive forces should control energy prices in a free market.

Improved tax incentives must be provided to make domestic energy available in the quantity and in the form required by the public interest.

Administration of the nation's antitrust laws must be relevant to our contemporary national goals.

Federal legislation realistically designed to assist the states and the surfacemining industry to achieve sound, effective reclamation of surface-mined lands should be enacted.

Realistic goals must be established in the national efforts to control environmental degradation.

Development of the nation's lands must provide for the necessary recovery of energy supplies and other resources.

An adequate and modern supply of equipment to transport solid, liquid and gaseous fuels must be assured.

An adequate and well-trained supply of manpower for the energy industries must be developed and maintained.

Wise and efficient utilization of all forms of energy should be promoted and encouraged.

The Energy Policy Act of 1973 is a significant piece of legislation in an effort to come to grips with our rapidly-deteriorating energy situation. We endorse S. 70 as a positive step toward the development of a comprehensive national energy policy. In this regard, there are several items which we believe should be included in Congress' deliberations on this bill.

We believe that the establishment of a permanent executive department to handle energy policy is vital to putting the nation's energy household in order. At the same time, there should be a corresponding energy body in the legislative branch. Congress should coordinate energy policy by combining the various congressional committees now dealing with segments of energy policy into one permanent committee such as a Joint Committee on Energy. At present there are more than a dozen different congressional committees dealing with this subject. Policies established under this fragmented machinery are often ambiguous or conflicting and, as a result, self-defeating. Some mechanism must be established whereby the overall energy objectives and policies of the nation ean be harmonized. The submittal of energy resource statements by federal agencies as prescribed by S. 70 should also be carefully considered. Experience has shown that statements of this nature, while well intentioned, have provided vehicles for counterproductive lawsuits and other obfuscating tactics in general. Rather than providing for the timely resolution of energy problems, they could result in protracted conflicts that would not be in the public interest. The resolution of competing points of view on energy matters must be provided for in such a manner as to allow the council to arrive at its policy decisions and recommendations in a wellinformed and prompt manner.

In the event such statements are included in legislation adopted by Congress, all federal agencies, including the Council on Energy Policy, should be required to file energy resource statements. In section 4(g) and 4(h) of S. 70, reference is made to the filing of the statements by "other" agencies. Such language appears to exempt the council from such a responsibility.

We believe that it is essential that the public be informed of the government's thinking in setting broad energy goals and policy which will affect all of us. S. 70, as it now reads, would immunize the council from filing such statements and thereby deny the public the information upon which decisions to embark upon new energy policies are based.

In addition, section 4(h) of S. 70 provides that the council shall recommend to the Congress the enactment of appropriate legislation where relevant energy data is not now available or reliable and beyond the authority of other agencies to collect. The proposed legislation would also provide that "pending congressional consideration the Council may gather such data directly."

We believe that such a provision would not be in the public interest and, rather than contributing to the rational resolution of energy problems, would create additional ones of its own. For instance, the legislation does not determine precisely what action by Congress is required before the council must either cease collecting the information or can go ahead and gather what it has requested.

Most importantly, however, such a provision would violate the constitutional legislative process by granting an apparent carte blanche to the council to collect any data the council deems useful. Such a proposal would not allow Congress to consider whether the information is, in fact, necessary and, indeed, whether it should be collected.

For Congress to delegate such sweeping authority is contrary to sound governmental principles and could lead to possible abuses without legislative oversight. While some duties have fallen traditionally within the executive branch's area of concern, such would not be the case in this instance. Only after the information in question could be demonstrated to be necessary and useful, and its collection satisfactorily shown to be in the public interest, should Congress grant the council or any other agency such authority.

The inclusion of current and foreseeable energy resource price trends in the council's energy report could also result in unintended consequences. While it is not clear how such trends could be determined, there is the possibility that the inclusion of such material could lead to the regulation of all energy prices. The experience of the Federal Power Commission in trying to deal with cost setting, let alone trying to determine price trends, demonstrates the difficulty of this task. Any deviation from these projections could have an adverse effect on the public's attitude toward the council and could severely hamper its ability to carry out its other duties with the public's confidence.

NCA believes that energy prices, as well as energy utilization, are best left to the demands of the marketplace. Rather than saddling the council with the impossible task of imposing its expertise on the will of the consuming public, we believe the public interest would be better served by having the council formulate policy and disseminate information which will enable the public to make a rational ultimate decision.

Briefly, I have tried to outline some points which should be carefully considered in the legislative proposal before you. I have not taken this opportunity to discuss the many provisions of the bill which NCA wholeheartedly endorses. These have already been amply covered by the other witnesses in the hearings.

NCA supports S. 70 in principle and believes that legislation of this nature is long overdue. We urge Congress to proceed promptly to enact such legislation with the appropriate revisions. Any delay in enacting such legislation will result in a further deterioration in the nation's energy situation which, in the final analysis, will be to the detriment of the American public.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH C. SWIDLER, CHAIRMAN, NEW YORK STATE
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Chairman Magnuson and members of the Committee, pursuant to your invitation I am happy to present a statement of my views in support of S. 70, a bill to establish a Council on Energy Policy. I regret that previously scheduled important commitments prevent my appearing before you in person today.

I strongly favor the enactment of S. 70. It seems to me essential that the President and the Congress be closely advised about vital energy matters and that the energy policies and actions of the Federal Government be rationalized and coordinated so that this nation may enjoy reliable energy supplies at reasonable costs, in ways consistent with the national security and environmental values. This country's rapidly deteriorating energy position makes it essential that we develop and apply a coherent set of energy policies designed to bulwark the energy foundation for this nation's economy. The President's message to Congress on June 4, 1971 was a promising beginning toward a rational Federal approach to energy. Since then, however, progress has been slow. Congressional action is called for to achieve the purposes of the bill to establish a Council on Energy Policy.

Certain salutary provisions in the bill merit special recognition and emphasis. First, the bill would obligate all federal agencies, not only energy-centered agencies, to address the energy implications of all federal actions and legislative proposals having a significant effect on energy availability or use. Each agency would issue an energy resource statement, pursuant to guidelines promulgated by the Council on Energy Policy, to express its views about the energy implications of its proposed actions and proposals for legislation.

Many agencies without an energy mission make decisions that have substantial energy significance. Examples are decisions concerning environmental protection, land use, taxation, foreign trade, transportation, housing and other matters. Energy considerations should not govern in all cases, but it is time to recognize that government can no longer ignore the energy implications of what it does, just as it can no longer ignore the economic or environmental or humanitarian implications of its actions or failures to act.

Second, the bill requires that the Council on Energy Policy develop a long range energy plan. As a prefactory matter I note that the bill calls for a "plan for energy utilization", but the rest of the bill makes plain that energy supply is also a matter of vital concern. Perhaps the phrase "plan for energy utilization" should be changed to "plan for energy supply and energy utilization" in Section 2(a) (3) and Section 4(c).

Addressing the merits of the requirement for long range planning, I may say that in over 30 years of government service I have seen recurrent proof of the need for planning to reveal issues, to improve administration, and to provide the framework for informed judgment and a resource for continuing examination and improvement. Of course, the value of a long range plan extends beyond the executive branch to the benefit of Congress and the public. The plan will serve as a focal point for public understanding, debate, and contribution to the resolution of the vital energy issues and decisions that affect us. Furthermore, it will provide Congress with a basis for informed and coordinated legislative action in matters affecting energy, just as the plan will promote informed and coordinated action among the federal agencies.

Establishment of the proposed Department of National Resources would not relieve the need for S. 70. I am not yet convinced, in the first place, that a monolithic Department of Natural Resources is desirable if it would compress all regulatory, coordinating, and supportive energy programs in one department, where energy conflicts and issues might be determined out of the view of Congress and the public. In any event, decisions that significantly affect energy must and will still be made by agencies other than the Department of Natural Resources. Furthermore, the President, Congress and the public will be better aided by keeping the energy planning and coordination function in an agency separate from those with energy administration responsibilities.

I am grateful for the opportunity to file this statement in support of S. 70.

THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, April 10, 1973.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: The Senate is currently considering enactment of S-70, a bill to establish a Council on Energy Policy, which was reported out of the Senate Commerce Committee on March 27. The bill had been previously introduced in the last Congress and was reintroduced in this session.

The President fully recognized the need for a comprehensive national energy policy. Accordingly, the President in February of this year appointed Secretary Shultz, John Ehrlichman and Henry Kissinger as a Special Committee on Energy The Committee has the mandate to study the energy situation, develop national policy, both for the short and the long term, for the President, and to see that resulting Presidential policy decisions are implemented in the various existing departments and agencies having responsibility for, or acting on matters which affect, the supply of and demand for energy.

Also in February, the President appointed Charles J. DiBona as Special Consultant to the President to work with the Special Committee on Energy to ensure that all major energy issues and actions are brought before the Committee for review and to provide the Committee with such information, recommendations and advice as may be necessary to assist the Committee in its work.

The Committee and Mr. DiBona have now been working together for seven weeks. In this period, he has hired a staff of five professionals (one economist, one

physicist, one lawyer, one political scientist and one M.B.A.), with one additional economist to join shortly. The staff has so far been intensively engaged in reviewing and analyzing the work of the various federal agencies relating to energy matters and is presently preparing both short and long range issues for Presidential decision. It is expected that within the next few weeks, some of these decisions will be announced in the President's Energy Message. Thereafter, in addition to ensuring that the decisions made by the President are fully and properly implemented, the staff will monitor ongoing energy problems, coordinate energy activities throughout the federal government and continue to develop a comprehensive energy policy.

As the performance of these tasks requires, additional professionals, qualified in the areas they will be addressing, may be added to the staff.

The President's appointment of Secretary Shultz, John Ehrlichman and Henry Kissinger reflects his desire to establish an organization responsive to him, having his confidence, and capable of advising him both on policy and technical questions, at the highest level of the Executive branch. Furthermore, unlike the Council on Energy sought to be established by S-70, the existing organization is engaged solely in substantive work, unburdened by the lack of flexibility and initiative so characteristic of bureaucracies. Finally, the size of the present staff will be governed by what is required to solve the problems it will face. The size of the Council's staff, on the other hand, will undoubtedly be limited only by the $4M appropriation provided for in three years, under S-70.

In summary, the Administration feels that there is an existing organization which is already performing the same functions proposed to be performed by the Council under S-70, and that enactment of S-70 and the creation of the Council thereunder would therefore be duplicative and counter-productive.

It is expected that the President will issue an Executive Order in the near future in order to formalize the existing arrangement and to confirm his confidence therein.

If you wish any additional information on the functions and operations of the President's Special Committee on Energy and the Office of the Special Consultant, I will be happy to arrange a meeting for this purpose among you, Mr. DiBona and myself.

I am sending letters similar to this to other selected leaders.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM E. TIMMONS,
Assistant to the President.

[Embargoed for release until 12 noon, EST, Office of the White House Press Secretary, Apr. 18, 1973]

To the Congress of the United States:

THE WHITE HOUSE.

At home and abroad, America is in a time of transition. Old problems are yielding to new initiatives, but in their place new problems are arising which once again challenge our ingenuity and require vigorous action. Nowhere is this more clearly true than in the field of energy.

As America has become more prosperous and more heavily industrialized, our demands for energy have soared. Today, with 6 percent of the world's population, we consume almost a third of all the energy used in the world. Our energy demands have grown so rapidly that they now outstrip our available supplies, and at our present rate of growth, our energy needs a dozen years from now will be nearly double what they were in 1970.

In the years immediately ahead, we must face up to the possibility of occasional energy shortages and some increase in energy prices.

Clearly, we are facing a vitally important energy challenge. If present trends continue unchecked, we could face a genuine energy crisis. But that crisis can and should be averted, for we have the capacity and the resources to meet our energy needs if only we take the proper steps-and take them now.

More than half the world's total reserves of coal are located within the United States. This resource alone would be enough to provide for our energy needs for well over a century. We have potential resources of billions of barrels of recoverable oil, similar quantities of shale oil and more than 2,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Properly managed, and with more attention on the part of consumers to the conservation of energy, these supplies can last for as long as our economy depends on conventional fuels.

In addition to natural fuels, we can draw upon hydroelectric plants and increas ing numbers of nuclear powered facilities. Moreover, long before our present energy sources are exhausted, America's vast capabilities in research and development can provide us with new, clean and virtually unlimited sources of power. Thus we should not be misled into pessimistic predictions of an energy disaster. But neither should we be lulled into a false sense of security. We must examine our circumstances realistically, carefully weigh the alternatives-and then move forward decisively.

WEIGHING THE ALTERNATIVES

Over 90 percent of the energy we consume today in the United States comes from three sources: natural gas, coal and petroleum. Each source presents us with a different set of problems.

Natural gas is our cleanest fuel and is most preferred in order to protect our environment, but ill-considered regulations of natural gas prices by the Federal Government have produced a serious and increasing scarcity of this fuel.

We have vast quantities of coal, but the extraction and use of coal have presented such persistent environmental problems that, today, less than 20 percent of our energy needs are met by coal and the health of the entire coal industry is seriously threatened.

Our third conventional resource is oil, but domestic production of available oil is no longer able to keep pace with demands.

In determining how we should expand and develop these resources, along with others such as nuclear power, we must take into account not only our economic goals, but also our environmental goals and our national security goals. Each of these areas is profoundly affected by our decisions concerning energy.

If we are to maintain the vigor of our economy, the health of our environment, and the security of our energy resources, it is essential that we strike the right balance among these priorities.

The choices are difficult, but we cannot refuse to act because of this. We cannot stand still simply because it is difficult to go forward. That is the one choice Americans must never make.

The energy challenge is one of the great opportunities of our time. We have already begun to meet that challenge, and realize its opportunities.

NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY

In 1971, I sent to the Congress the first message on energy policies ever submitted by an American President. In that message I proposed a number of specific steps to meet our projected needs by increasing our supply of clean energy in America.

Those steps included expanded research and development to obtain more clean energy, increased availability of energy resources located on Federal lands, increased efforts in the development of nuclear power, and a new Federal organization to plan and manage our energy programs.

In the twenty-two months since I submitted that message, America's energy research and development efforts have been expanded by 50 percent.

In order to increase domestic production of conventional fuels, sales of oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf have been increased. Federal and State standards to protect the marine environment in which these leases are located are being tightened. We have developed a more rigorous surveillance capability and an improved ability to prevent and clean up oil spills.

We are planning to proceed with the development of oil shale and geothermal energy sources on Federal lands, so long as an evaluation now underway shows that our environment can be adequately protected.

We have also taken new steps to expand our uranium enrichment capacity for the production of fuels for nuclear power plants, to standardize nuclear power plant designs, and to ensure the continuation of an already enviable safety record. We have issued new standards and guidelines, and have taken other actions to increase and encourage better conservation of energy.

In short, we have made a strong beginning in our effort to ensure that America will always have the power needed to fuel its prosperity. But what we have accomplished is only a beginning.

Now we must build on our increased knowledge, and on the accomplishments of the past twenty-two months, to develop a more comprehensive, integrated national energy policy. To carry out this policy we must:

-increase domestic production of all forms of energy;