------- Index of Articles

NUCLEAR
Discoverer of nuclear fission
More Nuclear Power Means More Risk
Nuclear Critics Slam Administration
Finland weighs underground nuclear waste disposal
French protesters block German nuclear train
Japan panel OKs 1st nuke plant since 1999 accident
Three-Way Meeting Set on North Korea
Lithuania nuclear plant reports minor waste mishap
Russia Rejects Bid to Raise Sub
W.House Says Nuclear Reactors in U.S. Could Double
Senate Bill Would Raise Downwinders' Benefits
Palo Verde: Nuke Burden Now Top Power Producer
AP Corrects Uranium - Miners Story
Text of Bush's Energy Policy Speech
Democrats Criticize Bush's Energy Plan

MILITARY
Beijing readies China Sea exercises
U.S.-British Plan Seeks to Restore Trade With Iraq
U.S. Switches Iraq Policy
UN Envoys Query Quick Adoption of New Iraqi Plans
Israel's army - A new, perhaps dangerous, freedom
ISRAEL: U.S. BUILDS BASE FOR ISRAELIS
Japan Calls for Cut in U.S. Forces
UN Climate Chief: Bush Plan Disastrous for Climate
Charges Against Sailor Dismissed
Pentagon Review Puts Emphasis on Long-Range Arms in Pacific
Rumsfeld Meets Lawmakers on Defense

OTHER
President's Energy Plan is 'Useful First Step,'
FPL to build Kansas wind farm to power 33,000 homes
Veggie-diesel to hit streets in San Francisco
Web site tracks environmental tax incentives, grants and rebates
More Power To You and California
Carter Says Energy Crisis Not Bad
DOE Silent On Energy Task Force Contacts
Bush National Energy Policy Expands Nuclear, Oil Drilling, Renewables
Bush Plan Draws Mixed Reaction From Energy Execs
Overview of Task Force's Report on National Energy Policy
Democrats Denounce Energy Plan
Proposal Is Latest U.S. Reaction to Energy Concerns
PSR Statement on Bush Energy Plan
Bush tackles energy 'crisis'
BUSH ENERGY PLAN - POLICY OR PAYBACK?

ACTIVISTS
Greenpeace Dumps Coal Outside Cheney Home
ROLL YOUR OWN BLACKOUT


-------- NUCLEAR

Discoverer of nuclear fission

The Hindu & indiaserver.com
Thursday, May 17, 2001
http://www.indiaserver.com/thehindu/2001/05/17/stories/08170004.htm

OTTO HAHN was born on March 8, 1879 in Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany. His father worked as a glazier and wished him to become an architect, for which vocation he studied till 1897. When he was 18, like the legendary chemist Kekule (1829-96), he switched over the chemistry, after attending a series of lectures in Chemistry at the university.

He entered Marburg University in 1897 to study under Professor Theodor Zincke. He carried out research on the bromine derivatives of `iso- eugenol', which won him the doctorate (1901). Hahn became in 1902 assistant to Zincke to obtain a footing in the German chemical industry which was his goal.

However, events took a quite different turn in 1904. Zincke was informed of a vacancy for a chemist in a firm, which however required command of a foreign language. He suggested Hahn and also obtained a place for him in William Ramsay's laboratory at the University College.

So Hahn left for London in September 1904. It was in this way that he lauded in the new subject of radio chemistry, to which he was to make outstanding contributions.

Entry into radio chemistry

Handing his young German assistant a dish containing 100 grams of barium salt, Ramsay asked him to extract the few milligrams of radium in it, employing the fractional crystallisation method of Marie Curie (1867- 1934) Hahn, by training an organic chemist, was unfamiliar with this field; but Ramsay observed that Hahn would approach the problem without preconceived ideas.

Hahn followed the prescribed separation technique and found himself the discoverer of a new element which was named `radio thorium'. This work changed the direction of Hahn's career.

Ramsay quickly perceived such research talent would be wasted in industry. So he secured for Hahn a post in Emil Fischer's Chemical Institute at the University of Berlin.

But Hahn wished to attain mastery over radio-activity and proceeded to Montreal in September 1905 to work under Rutherford, the leader in the field. Rutherford had, however, a a low opinion of the work coming from Ramsay's laboratory.

Radiothorium had been characterized as a compound of ``Th-x and stupidity''. Hahn soon convinced the skeptics in Rutherford's laboratory of the reality of his substance and again exhibited his talent by discovering radio-actinium.

After spending an year in Canada, Hahn returned to the University of Berlin in the fall of 1906, becoming a professor in 1910. He became director of Emil Fischer institute in 1928.

In Berlin he found himself in an elitist group - Meitner, Nevnst, Warburg, Max von Lane, James Franck, Hertz. Lise Meitner (1878- 1968) was the most important physicist, who came in 1907 to do theoretical work and also pursue some studies in experimental radioactivity.

This was the beginning of a collaboration with her, that lasted 30 years. Hahn contributed his skills from chemistry, Meitner hers from physics.

With the method of `radioactive recoil' that Hahn pioneered in 1909, he and Meitner found a few more radioelements.In 1912 Hahn was made head of a department of radio activity in the newly started Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry.

The group made striking theoretical advances in radio chemistry: placement of the radio elements in appropriate boxes of the periodic table; concept of `isotropy', namely inseparable radio- elements were not only similar but chemically identical.

By the early 1920's almost all the radio elements were known; Hahn now turned towards applications of his speciality.

Radio chemistry was transformed into nuclear chemistry with the events of the 1930's: Chadwick's discovery of the neutron, the Joliot-Curie discovery of artificial radio-activity, and the application by Fermi of neutron bombardment to produce additional radioactive materials.

It was difficult enough to explain how uranium changed to radium, as no alpha particles were observed.

Nuclear fission

But, towards the end of 1938, Hahn could scarcely believe in a transmutation from uranium to barium. He sent this finding to Meitner who had fled to Stockholm to escape the Nazis. With Otto Frisch (1904-79), she correctly interpreted the result as a splitting of the uranium nucleus and gave it the name `fission'.

Hahn was little concerned with the energy released in fission and played no part in the German atomic bomb project during World War II.

When the Emily Fischer chemical institute (University of Berlin) was destroyed in an air raid, he moved his equipment to Southern Germany and resumed his work. With other nuclear scientists he was arrested in the spring of 1945 and interned in England.

To his profound dismay, he heard of the application of his discovery when nuclear weapons were detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Rebirth of german science

On his release, he returned to Germany in early 1946, and accepted leadership of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society, which was renamed the Max Planck Society at the instance of the occupation authorities.

He played a major role in reestablishing not only the society's research institutes but the post-war German science.

Hahn was awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry (1944) and was honoured by many universities and international societies.

His name is commemorated in: the Hahn-Meitner Institute for Nuclear Research, Berlin; the Otto Hahn Institute for Chemistry, Mairiz and West Germany's first nuclear vessel, the Otto Hahn.

His declining years were beset by domestic calamities: his only son died in a car accident in 1960, and he had to take care of his grandson and his invalid wife.

Hahn worked ceaselessly in the cause of nuclear disarmament being responsible for the 1955 ``Mainan Declaration'' of Nobel laureates.

Also he was one of the 18 German scientists who protested publicly any German acquisition of nuclear arms.( The Dictionary of Scientific Biography Vol. VI).

R.Parthasarathy

-------

More Nuclear Power Means More Risk

By PAUL L. LEVENTHAL
May 17, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/17/opinion/17LEVE.html

WASHINGTON - Despite all the talk about nuclear power as the environmentally clean response to electricity shortages and global warming, many Americans are understandably wary. The Bush administration's energy task force announces its report today, and President Bush would do well to note the public's concerns about the combination of human fallibility and mechanical failure that can set off catastrophic accidents at nuclear plants and about the link between nuclear waste and nuclear weapons.

The nuclear industry's safety and security claims are often misleading. Its spokesmen still insist that the Three Mile Island accident demonstrated that the core of a light water reactor is far more resistant to a meltdown than had been previously thought. They don't acknowledge that the core at the Three Mile Island plant was within hours of an uncontrolled melt - with Chernobyl-like consequences - when a new shift supervisor came on duty in a panicked control room and finally figured out that thousands of gallons of cooling water had poured undetected from a valve that was stuck open. Advanced designs for presumably safer light water reactors and simpler pebble-bed reactors still have not made it off the drawing boards.

Though the nuclear industry claims it is being crippled by overregulation, its powerful friends on Capitol Hill have threatened budget cuts to make the Nuclear Regulatory Commission compliant. The N.R.C. has begun a process of granting life extension to America's aging supply of 104 power reactors, for example, despite a rash of forced shutdowns due to equipment failures caused by aging. There have been at least eight such shutdowns over the past 16 months, according to an analysis of N.R.C. data by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

And the agency has decided not to take enforcement action against weak security at nuclear plants: guards at half the nation's nuclear power plants have failed to repel mock attackers in N.R.C.-supervised exercises that test the protection of reactor safety systems against sabotage. Instead, it is in the process of weakening the rules of the "game" used in the mock attacks.

A push for nuclear power, which Mr. Bush supports, isn't the way to meet America's urgent energy needs. New plants could not be brought on line quickly enough to offset present electricity shortages, which many experts believe are caused primarily by lack of capacity for transmission, not production. Nor could using nuclear plants make a big dent in global warming. Two-thirds of the emissions of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas, are from transportation or other sources not related to power generation. And worldwide, it would take 3,000 nuclear plants - a tenfold increase - to replace all coal plants; yet that increase would reduce carbon emissions by only 20 percent, while enormously expanding risks that materials from nuclear power plants would be applied to making weapons. And since reserves of uranium ore are limited, millions of kilograms of plutonium, equivalent to hundreds of thousands of bombs, would have to be separated from wastes each year to help fuel so many reactors in the future.

There are better alternatives. Energy efficiency measures, like using the best available existing technology for air conditioning, lighting and electric motors, could offset the need to build any new nuclear plants. Renewable energy sources and other alternative energy systems, including hydrogen recovered from fossil fuels after removing carbon, could provide new, clean ways to generate power.

A rapid expansion of nuclear power would compound the existing dangers of nuclear weapons proliferation. International inspections of nuclear facilities provide uncertain protection; Iran, for example, has pledged to put the reactors it will build under inspection but is still suspected of using civilian nuclear power as a cover for a nascent nuclear weapons program.

George Perkovich, in his book "India's Nuclear Bomb," reports that a bomb tested by India in 1998 was made from the grade of plutonium produced in its 10 uninspected power reactors.

Is it reasonable to assume that millions of kilograms of plutonium, separated from reactor wastes, can be kept secure, down to amounts of less than eight kilograms, which is all that is needed for an atomic bomb that terrorists and radical states could make? This is the ultimate question requiring an answer before nuclear power is looked to as the solution to climate and energy worries.

Paul L. Leventhal, president of the Nuclear Control Institute, was codirector of the Senate investigation of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident.

----

Nuclear Critics Slam Administration

By H. Josef Hebert
Associated Press Writer
Thursday, May 17, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010517/aponline202223_000.htm

WASHINGTON -- A Bush administration proposal to revive the practice of nuclear fuel reprocessing brought a sharp response Thursday from critics who fear it would increase the danger that terrorists could obtain plutonium.

The White House task force on energy recommended that in developing the next generation of civilian nuclear reactors, the United States "should re-examine its policy" toward reprocessing and recycling nuclear fuel.

If pursued, the recommendation would revive a program that has been largely abandoned since the cancellation in 1994 of a breeder reactor program at a federal research lab in Idaho.

Developed fully, this would allow a reduction of nuclear waste and be "cleaner, more efficient, less waste-intensive and more proliferation resistant," the Cabinet-level task force report on energy options said.

Nuclear nonproliferation advocates complained that this could lead to broader acceptance of reprocessing by the civilian nuclear industry, which was abandoned in the 1970s because of worries about nuclear proliferation.

"This is an invitation to catastrophe," said Paul Leventhal, president of the Nuclear Control Institute, a nonproliferation advocacy group. He said this kind of "push for nuclear power isn't the way to meet urgent energy needs."

In reprocessing, plutonium is separated from other radioisotopes in used reactor fuel and, in some cases, used again as fuel. Opponents fear that if left in the civilian nuclear program, plutonium might be obtained more readily by terrorists or rogue states for bomb making.

Although reprocessing is accepted in Europe and Japan as part of the nuclear fuel cycle, it has not been revived by any U.S. president since President Carter abandoned it in the 1970s.

However, the Energy Department has a prototype facility at the Argonne West laboratory in Idaho for research into so-called "pyroprocessing," a form of fuel reprocessing.

Pyroprocessing had been part of the government's breeder reactor program that was canceled in 1994 and is now used to stabilize old reactor fuel from the breeder program and prepare it for disposal, said Paul Pugmirer, a spokesman for the laboratory in Idaho.

The president's energy task force recommended that the Idaho research be turned again to developing fuel recycling technology possibly to be used in the next generation of nuclear reactors.

It signals a desire by the administration to get back into the breeder reactor business, said Arjun Makhijani, a nuclear physicist involved in the anti-nuclear movement.

"Pyroprocessing is the tail that seems set to resurrect the breeder reactor dog," said Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.

Pugmirer said the plutonium left over from pyroprocessing, or electrolytic separation, is impure and contains other radioisotopes. As a result, he said, it is highly radioactive, could not be transported easily or diverted and is not suitable for weapons.

The program's critics disagree.

The impurity will not make a difference "if you're desperate for plutonium and want to make a crude bomb," said Makhijani.

Additionally, he said, if the United States pursues pyroprocessing, it will have to share the technology with other countries leading to proliferation of this form of reprocessing technology.

"It's a huge proliferation problem," said Makhijani. "I'm surprised to the extent they are willing to jettison 25 years of nonproliferation policy without a serious debate in the context of more energy production."

On the Net:
National Energy Policy text: HTTP://www.energy.gov/HQPress/releases01/maypr/energy-policy.htm

Argonne West National Laboratory: http://www.anl.gov/

Nuclear Control Institute: http://www.nci.org/home.htm

Institute for Energy and Environmental Research: http://www.ieer.org/

-------- finland

Finland weighs underground nuclear waste disposal

FINLAND: May 17, 2001
Story by Heli Suominen
REUTERS
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10850

HELSINKI - The Finnish parliament yesterday began debating a controversial proposal to bury waste from Finland's nuclear power plants at a site 500 metres (1,640 ft) underground.

The debate will test the cohesion of the coalition government since most European countries are now moving away from nuclear power with public opinion increasingly opposed to use of atomic energy and worried about nuclear waste disposal.

The government decided in December to give its support in principle to plans by waste group Posiva, a unit of power groups Teollisuuden Voima and Fortum, to build an underground disposal facility at Olkiluoto in western Finland.

Environmental group Greenpeace said any parliamentary decision should wait for further research, and argued that the waste tanks could be kept under better supervision in temporary storage units.

Greenpeace activists set up 500 crosses on the lawn in front of Parliament House to protest against the building of the final waste dump. Each cross represented 10 generations that would inherit the problem, the organisation said.

If parliament endorses the proposal, Posiva plans to begin excavating in 2003-2004 and to start building the final nuclear waste disposal plant in 2010, officials said.

The country's two nuclear plants at Olkiluoto and Loviisa annually produce 70 tonnes of nuclear waste, which is temporarily stored on the plant grounds. The government says that final storage below ground would be safer than long-term temporary storage.

Last November TVO filed an application for a permit to build a new nuclear reactor, which would be the country's fifth and would put this Nordic nation at odds with a broad international trend away from nuclear power.

If parliament passes the government proposal, Finland will be the first country in the world to decide to go ahead with deep underground disposal of nuclear waste, though several others are considering it.

According to the International Energy Agency, Korea, Japan and Finland are the only members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) considering building new nuclear power stations.

The dangers of nuclear waste are one of the arguments environmental organisations present against a new nuclear plant. Finland last shipped nuclear waste to Russia in 1996 after passing a law requiring it to be disposed of domestically.

The nuclear power issues threatens to upset cooperation in the government as the Greens, a junior partner in the five-party coalition, have vowed to pull out if the government and parliament allow industry's plans for a new reactor to go ahead.

-------- france

French protesters block German nuclear train

FRANCE: May 17, 2001
REUTERS
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10846

ROUEN, France - French anti-nuclear protesters caused several short delays to a train carrying German nuclear waste as it lumbered towards a reprocessing plant on the Channel coast, activists said yesterday.

About 20 people blocked the train at Amiens, in northern France, for about an hour and Greens Party national spokeswoman Francine Bavay was one of the three demonstrators detained by police, a party spokesman said.

Further to the west near Caen about 15 activists occupied the tracks and covered them with yellow crosses, the symbol of their opposition to the nuclear transports, the environmental group Greenpeace said.

The transport of the so-called Castor containers carrying the spent fuel rods was scheduled to reach the reprocessing plant at La Hague, northern France, yesterday morning before these delays set in.

The train crossed into France from Germany on Tuesday evening and was briefly stopped near Strasbourg by about 40 protestors hurling smoke bombs. Protesters caused another brief delay at Bar-le-Duc during the night, police said.

The train was the second to transport German nuclear waste to France since the two countries agreed to resume such convoys in January after a two-year break.

-------- japan

Japan panel OKs 1st nuke plant since 1999 accident

JAPAN: May 17, 2001
REUTERS
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10844

TOKYO - A Japanese government panel yesterday approved the construction of a new nuclear power plant for the first time since the nation's worst nuclear accident in September 1999 that killed two plant workers.

New Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who has the final word, is expected to rubber-stamp the plan, an official at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) said.

Pending final approval, Chugoku Electric Power Co Inc will have the green light to build a 2.74-gigawatt plant with two reactors in Kaminoseki, Yamaguchi prefecture, some 600 km (375 miles) west of Tokyo.

METI's decision is likely to raise a furore among local residents, some of whom are refusing to sell the rest of the land needed to build the facility.

Since the nation's worst accident in Tokaimura two years ago, many nuclear power projects have been forced to delay amid growing public distrust of the industry and residents' fear of living near a nuclear power plant.

The approval of Chugoku Electric's project had been delayed due partly to difficulties for securing land, 20 percent of which has yet to be procured, the METI official said.

The government last year approved the construction of two nuclear reactors to be added to existing plants in Shimane, western Japan and Hokkaido, northern Japan, but this would be the first to be built from scratch since the fatal accident.

Construction of the Kaminoseki plant is due to begin in fiscal 2007, with one reactor scheduled to be completed in fiscal 2012 and the other in fiscal 2015. Each reactor is expected to have the capacity to generate 1.37 gigawatt of power.

Total costs for the project are estimated at 800 billion yen ($6.49 billion), a spokesman at Chugoku Electric said.

Japan has 51 commercial nuclear reactors, which provide about one-third of the nation's power.

-------- korea

Three-Way Meeting Set on North Korea

The Associated Press
Thursday, May 17, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010517/aponline174837_002.htm

WASHINGTON -- Officials from the United States, Japan and South Korea will meet in Honolulu on May 26 to coordinate strategy toward North Korea, the State Department said Thursday.

Spokesman Richard Boucher said a U.S. review of North Korea policy was nearing completion.

Negotiations with North Korea on curbing missiles have been held in abeyance while the Bush administration undertakes the policy review.

The three countries have been meeting periodically since 1999 to compare notes on North Korea policy.

-------- lithuania

Lithuania nuclear plant reports minor waste mishap

LATVIA: May 17, 2001
REUTERS
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10842

RIGA - Lithuania's Ignalina nuclear power plant said yesterday it had spilled contents from a container of medium-level nuclear waste, but no change in radiation levels had occurred.

"Yesterday, we transported some containers with waste...after maintenance," a spokeswoman told Reuters. "It is medium-level waste. One of the containers fell from the truck and some waste was spread on the road."

The spokeswoman could not immediately say how much of the material was spilled.

She said the accident occured within the territory of the plant and the site of the accident had been cleaned and the spilled materials were stored in a waste disposal site.

Tests showed no changes in radiation levels had occurred, she said.

She added the event ranked as a "One" on the International Nuclear Events Scale (INES) and was considered an "anomoly".

INES ranges from zero to seven and categorises events from minor mishaps and anomolies to full-blown nuclear disasters.

-------- russia

Russia Rejects Bid to Raise Sub

New York Times
May 17, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Russia-Nuclear-Submarine.html

MOSCOW (AP) -- Russia on Thursday unexpectedly rejected a bid by a consortium of Dutch and Norwegian companies to help raise the sunken nuclear submarine Kursk.

The contract will instead be awarded Friday to an unidentified third party, Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov was cited as saying by Russia's ORT television news. The reason for the decision was unclear.

The Kursk was one of Russia's most modern nuclear submarines. It exploded and sank in the Barents Sea in August, killing all 118 crewmen.

Russia has said it will raise the shattered submarine this summer to retrieve the bodies of dead sailors and to study the causes of the accident. Experts say it could cost up to $80 million to raise the Kursk.

The plan has provoked controversy in Russia. Some relatives of the victims say they would prefer the bodies be left in peace. Environmentalists have also objected, saying the vessel's reactor compartment might break open and release radiation.

Russia had negotiated for months with the consortium and Thursday's decision came as a surprise, the Interfax news agency cited corporate manager Lars Walder of Smit Tak, a Dutch salvage company in the consortium, as saying.

The Norwegian branch of the Dallas, Texas-based company Halliburton and Holland's Heerma Marine Contractors are also partners in the consortium.

On Monday, Klebanov had said an agreement with the companies was all but ready and would be finalized this week in St. Petersburg.

Walder said the consortium's demand for strict payment guarantees from the Russian government might have scuttled talks, Interfax said.

Two nuclear reactors and some 22 missiles are still on the 14,000-ton submarine, which lies 356 feet below the surface of sea.

Halliburton was involved in an operation last summer to retrieve some bodies from the Kursk, which sank after two explosions, one so massive it was compared to a small earthquake.

Most foreign experts consider a torpedo malfunction in the forward compartment as the most likely cause of the sinking.

-------- u.s. nuc facilities

W.House Says Nuclear Reactors in U.S. Could Double

May 17, 2001
By Tom Doggett
http://news.excite.com/news/r/010517/12/politics-bush-energy-nuclear-dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration said on Thursday the United States could increase its use of nuclear power by doubling the number of reactors at many nuclear power plant sites already licensed by the federal government.

As part of its recommendations for a comprehensive national energy policy unveiled by President Bush in St. Paul, Minnesota, a White House task force said building more nuclear reactors at existing locations avoids "many complex issues" associated with finding new sites.

"Many U.S. nuclear plant sites were designed to host four to six reactors, and most operate only two or three; many sites across the country could host additional plants," the task force said in its report to Bush

There are currently 103 nuclear reactors operating in 31 states. Nuclear energy accounts for 20 percent of all U.S. electricity generation and more than 40 percent of power generation in 10 states.

No new nuclear plants have been built since the 1979 accident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island plant, where the failure of the plant's water cooling system led to the partial melting of a reactor's uranium core. That $1 billion accident effectively halted the U.S. nuclear industry in its tracks.

Some environmental groups have said they will try to block any new nuclear plants.

In addition to safety issues, the green groups contend that a key problem is what to do with all the highly radioactive waste from the 103 plants now in operation.

The cabinet-level task force said about 12,000 megawatts of additional nuclear electricity generation could be derived from "uprating" plants, a process that uses new technologies and methods to increase the level that a plant could operate without decreasing safety.

One megawatt provides enough power for about 1,000 homes.

The task force recommended that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission speed the approval process for licensing new nuclear reactors that use advance technologies. The report also said the agency should facilitate the industry's efforts to expand power generation by uprating existing nuclear plants safely.

Many nuclear utilities are planning to extend their licenses for another 20 years, and the task force said the administration should encourage the NRC to relicense existing nuclear plants that meet or exceed safety standards.

As many as 90 percent of the licenses for current operating plants may be renewed, the task force said.

Separately, the task force said 2,000 megawatts of power could be added by increasing the operating performance of nuclear plants to 92 percent capacity, up slightly from the current industry average of 90 capacity.

The White House panel acknowledged that storing spent fuel from nuclear reactors remains a problem and urged the administration to use the "best science" when deciding on a permanent waste storage site.

The task force made no recommendation on where a storage site should be located, but noted the administration will continue to study whether spent nuclear fuel should be stored at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

It also urged Congress to renew the Price-Anderson Act, which expires in August 2002 and shields nuclear power plants from catastrophic liability costs.

A nuclear industry trade group praised the White House energy report.

"The White House rightly has recognized that nuclear energy plays an essential role in helping our nation achieve its economic and environmental goals," said Joe Colvin, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute. "It sends an important message to Wall Street ... that national policy at the highest level envisions continuing and even greater reliance on nuclear power as part of our long-term energy strategy."

--------

Senate Bill Would Raise Downwinders' Benefits

Salt Lake Tribune
Thursday, May 17, 2001
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.sltrib.com/05172001/nation_w/98110.htm

WASHINGTON -- Victims of Cold War nuclear weapons development programs would be guaranteed $150,000 and medical benefits under legislation introduced Wednesday.

The bill, co-sponsored by Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Pete Domenici, R-N.M., would patch holes in existing laws meant to compensate people exposed to radiation by fallout from nuclear tests, known as downwinders, or through mining uranium.

Lack of money has left dozens of sick and dying uranium miners and downwinders holding IOUs from the government.

Hatch and Domenici are proposing increasing benefits for fallout victims by $100,000 to bring them to the level of miners and other nuclear weapons workers whose compensation was boosted to $150,000 last year.

"It seems blatantly unfair for the federal government to provide a richer level of benefits to its own employees than for innocent civilians who happened to live downwind from a test site," Hatch said in a statement.

The legislation also would cover medical bills for fallout victims, which can dwarf the monetary compensation, said Preston Truman, director of the group Downwinders.

"That medical stuff is a godsend to all of us," Truman said, although he is skeptical about the bill's chances for passage. "I'll have to see it get passed before I believe it."

The bill also protects the compensation from Congress' annual budget battles by declaring it an entitlement.

"Our goal now is to make the program for the miners mandatory," Domenici said. "We're going to get it done. "

It would cost $71 million to pay anticipated Radiation Exposure Compensation Act claims next year and $650 million over the next decade.

-------- new mexico

Palo Verde: Nuke Burden Now Top Power Producer

Albuquerque Journal
By Rosalie Rayburn Journal Staff Writer
Thursday, May 17, 2001
http://www.abqjournal.com/biz/334691biz05-17-01.htm

The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station once was considered a corporate albatross around the neck of New Mexico's largest power company. But today it is PNM's most valuable workhorse.

The giant electricity plant west of Phoenix - of which Public Service Company of New Mexico owns 10.2 percent - has been the country's most consistent and prolific power producer for nearly a decade.

The plant's three units ran 92.7 percent of the time last year, a level few gas or coal plants can ever achieve.

"This was the ninth straight year as the No. 1 power producer in the country," said Sheri Foote, spokeswoman for Arizona Public Service company, which operates the plant.

Foote's excitement is shared by industry analysts.

"What's happened quietly in the last five to 10 years is that they're (nuclear plants) generating more power and running very efficiently," said Jim Owen, spokesman for the trade group Edison Electric Institute.

Technological improvements have cut the time nuclear plants have to shut down for refueling from an average of 101 days to 39 days, said Mitch Singer, spokesman for the trade group Nuclear Energy Institute.

"The improved performance is equivalent to adding 23 new plants," Singer said.

In terms of operating costs, nuclear electricity generation has long been less expensive than natural gas and competitive with coal.

But when the high cost of constructing nuclear plants was factored in, they were less cost-competitive than natural gas.

Now that natural gas prices are double or triple what they were just two years ago, nuclear power generation is attracting renewed attention.

"People in Washington are really taking a fresh new look at the role nuclear power plays in our current generation mix," said Owen.

He said Palo Verde was a perfect example of an efficiently running nuclear plant.

The cost of producing electricity at Palo Verde is 1.83 cents per kilowatt-hour. When construction costs are added in, it comes to 3.02 cents per kilowatt-hour, said PNM spokeswoman Julie Grey.

With gas at present prices, the operating cost at gas-fired plants is about 3.7 cents per kwh. Coal is still the cheapest fuel, with operating costs of 1.0 to 1.5 cents per kwh, said NEI's Singer. Neither estimate includes construction and maintenance costs.

"If gas prices stay high, other technologies become attractive," said Bob Bellemare, vice president of utility services for Scientech, a research and consulting company that tracks the electrical industry.

Nuclear generation "offers forward market stability," said Singer, because uranium is plentiful and the price stable.

Changing times

When PNM committed $1 billion to join other Southwestern utilities in building the massive Palo Verde plant in the late 1970s, state regulators decided not to let PNM recoup all of its costs from ratepayers.

That led PNM to sell power not only to New Mexico customers, but on the wholesale market as well, said Terry Horn, PNM's vice president and treasurer.

Units 1 and 2 of Palo Verde became operational in 1986, Unit 3 in 1988.

Output from the plant was supposed to meet expected growth in demand from new industries and population. But neither reached projections.

The new plant only contributed to an excess of generating capacity in the Southwest, and wholesale power prices remained depressed for many years.

"Initially, power was sold at a loss. We had to write down about $400 million of the cost of building the plant," said PNM's Grey.

The impact forced PNM to suspend dividend payments to its shareholders for seven years.

In an effort to reduce costs, PNM entered a sale lease-back agreement on Palo Verde Units 1 and 2 that was included in rates.

The agreement cut the eventual cost to ratepayers by $286 million, Horn said, but PNM will be paying the $66 million-a-year note until 2016. At that time the plant will belong, not to PNM, but to the financial institutions that hold the leases.

"Between now and then, PNM will have to decide about repurchasing," said Horn.

And suddenly, that appears much more attractive. The reason: Power supplies in the Southwest are tight, and Palo Verde has allowed PNM to become a player in an increasingly lucrative market.

"Palo Verde is a major trading hub for the Southwest. It's allowed PNM to become a small but effective trader in the growing Western wholesale market," said Eddy Padilla, PNM's senior vice president of bulk power marketing.

PNM's revenues from sales into the wholesale market jumped 310 percent to $410.7 million in the first quarter of this year compared to $100.3 million in the same period last year.

22 percent

A recent report from the Energy Information Administration showed that the country's 103 nuclear reactors are providing about 22 percent of the nation's electricity. About 16 percent is produced by gas-fired plants.

Nearly 96 percent of all new power plants projects currently being discussed are natural gas-fired, said PNM President and CEO Jeff Sterba on Wednesday.

He, too, thinks that nuclear power deserves another look.

"I think nuclear has a future. I think it's re-established its credibility. The main problem is disposal of waste, and the federal government has an obligation to do that," said Sterba.

Sterba says Palo Verde is a valuable part of PNM's mix of generating fuels but PNM doesn't have any plans at present to build further nuclear facilities.

It has been 25 years since a nuclear plant has been approved. The accident at Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Harrisburg, Pa., in 1979 left a long shadow.

But there are numerous signs that the tide is changing.

In March 2000 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted the first-ever renewal of a nuclear power plant's operating license. The 20-year extension went to the 1,700-megawatt Calvert Cliffs plant in Maryland.

On a political level, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., in March introduced a bill that would increase spending by $406 million to support nuclear energy initiatives.

The bill, called the Nuclear Energy Assurance Act, has five components:

* Support nuclear energy production;
* Encourage new plant construction;
* Ensure a level playing field for nuclear power;
* Create waste solutions; and
* Improve Nuclear Regulatory Commission nuclear regulations.

"Nuclear energy is not the end-all, be-all of our energy needs. In fact there is no single silver bullet. ... Our job is to objectively weigh the risk and benefits of this energy source and take action to tap into that power," Domenici said in a statement March 7.

PNM has no plans at present to build or buy any more nuclear generating capacity. However, the utility will have a 550-megawatt share in a Kansas nuclear-powered generating station when its planned merger with Western Resources gets regulatory approval in late 2001 or early 2002.

-------- us nuc politics

AP Corrects Uranium - Miners Story

May 17, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Uranium-Miners.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Associated Press reported on May 16, based on erroneous information from the press offices of Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Pete Domenici, R-N.M., that citizens exposed to radioactive fallout from nuclear weapons tests would be eligible for $150,000 in compensation and medical benefits under legislation sponsored by the two senators. The bill would provide $100,000 in compensation, plus medical benefits.

----

Text of Bush's Energy Policy Speech

May 17, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/17/politics/17WIRE-BUSH-TEXT.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/17/politics/17WIRE-BUSH-TEXT.html?pagewanted=2

Text of President Bush's speech unveiling his energy policy in St. Paul, Minn. on Thursday, as transcribed by eMediaMillWorks, Inc.

BUSH: Thank you for that warm welcome. First, I want to thank my friend Norm Coleman. What a great leader he is for St. Paul.

He's a very good friend. I think it's very important for you all to know that when Norm calls over there to Washington, I'll answer the phone.

Traveling with me today are two of my Cabinet officers. First, from the state of Michigan, the Energy Secretary Spence Abraham.

And the EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman.

I appreciate John's invitation to be here and I want to thank the Capital City Partnership for giving me the chance to come and deliver a major policy address to the nation.

I'm also pleased to be in the home of the mighty Minnesota Twins.

Their cost per win is astounding.

It serves as a good example of what frugality can do for the nation.

But I'm not here to talk about baseball. The Twin Cities are a great place to discuss America's energy challenge. Minneapolis-St. Paul grew up as a mighty milling and transportation center because of the power of the Mississippi River. Your history was built on energy that was abundant and affordable and reliable. So too will be this nation's energy future.

I invite you to think with me about that future. I had an early look at the future this morning right here in St. Paul. I toured a plant that harnesses the best of new technology to produce energy that is cleaner and more efficient and more affordable.

The plant boils enough water to heat 146 major office buildings in downtown St. Paul. Not a bit of energy is wasted, not even the waste. The excess heat generated as the water boils is captured and used to create steam, which generates still more electricity to power pumps and to deliver heat.

The plant is a model of energy efficiency. It is also a model of energy diversity. It uses conventional fuels like oil and natural gas and coal, and renewable fuels like wood chips. And the plant is a model of affordability. While other energy prices rise, District Energy has not raised its heating and cooling rates in four years.

We're beginning to see the power of the future, not only in office buildings, but also in our homes and our cars.

This spring the Sustainable Buildings Industry Council showcased a solar powered home so advanced that it actually produces more energy than it uses. And some Americans are already driving hybrid cars that can convert to battery power to reduce emissions and get up to 70 miles a gallon of gas. These are our early glimpses of a future in which Americans will meet our energy needs in ways that are efficient, clean, convenient and affordable.

The future is achievable if we make the right choices now. But if we fail to act, this great country could face a darker future, a future that is unfortunately being previewed in rising prices at the gas pump and rolling blackouts in the great state of California. These events are challenging what had become a fact of life in America: The routine, everyday expectation that when you flick on a light switch, the light will come on. Californians are learning, regrettably, that sometimes when you flick on the light switch, the light does not come on at any price.

I'm deeply concerned about the impact of blackouts on the daily lives of the good people of the state of California, and my administration is committed to helping California.

We're helping right now by expediting permits for new power production and by working as good partners to reduce our electricity at federal facilities, especially during the peak periods this summer.

My administration has developed a sound national plan to help meet our energy needs this year and every year. If we fail to act on this plan, energy prices will continue to rise.

For two decades, the share of the average family budget spent on energy steadily declined. But since 1998, it has skyrocketed by 25 percent, and that's a hardship for every American family.

If we fail to act, Americans will face more and more widespread blackouts. If we fail to act, our country will become more reliant on foreign crude oil, putting our national energy security into the hands of foreign nations, some of whom who do not share our interests.

And if we fail to act, our environment will suffer, as government officials struggle to prevent blackouts in the only way possible, by calling on more polluting emergency backup generators and by running less-efficient old power plants too long and too hard. America cannot allow that to be our future, and we will not.

To protect the environment, to meet our growing energy needs, to improve our quality of life, America needs an energy plan that faces up to our energy challenges and meets them.

Vice President Cheney and many members of my Cabinet spent months analyzing our problems and seeking solutions. The result is a comprehensive series of more than 100 recommendations that light the way to a brighter future through energy that is abundant and reliable, cleaner and more affordable.

The plan addresses all three key aspects of the energy equation: demand, supply and the means to match them.

I will call on Congress to pass legislation to bring more gas to market while improving pipeline safety and safeguarding the environment.

America should also expand a clean and unlimited source of energy, nuclear power. Many Americans may not realize that nuclear power already provides one-fifth of this nation's electricity, safely and without air pollution. But the last American nuclear power plant to enter operation was ordered in 1973.

In contrast, France, our friend and ally, gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. By renewing and expanding existing nuclear facilities, we can generate tens of thousands of megawatts of electricity at a reasonable cost without pumping a gram of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

New reactor designs are even safer and more economical than the reactors we possess today. And my energy plan directs the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to use the best science to move expeditiously to find a safe and permanent repository for nuclear waste.

Our energy plan also supports the development of new and renewable sources of energy.

It recommends tax credits to homeowners who invest in solar homes and to utilities that build wind turbines or harness biomass and other environmentally friendly forms of power.

It removes impediments to the development of hydroelectricity. It proposes incentives to buy new cars that run on alternative fuels like ethanol that consume less oil and, therefore, pollute less.

It supports research into fuel cells, a technology of tomorrow that can power a car with hydrogen, the most common element in the universe, and emit only steam as a waste product.

In all of these ways, we will expand the diversity or our energy supply. But as with conservation, new energy supply alone is not the whole answer. There is a third element we must address: modernizing the network that delivers the supply to the point of demand.

In 1919, a young U.S. Army officer was ordered to lead a truck convoy westward across our country. He was astonished to discover that the journey took 62 days. His name was Dwight David Eisenhower. And the memory of this bumpy, transcontinental ride led to the creation of a modern transportation system.

Today, our electrical system is almost as bumpy as our highways were 80 years ago. We have chopped our country into dozens of local electricity markets, which are haphazardly connected to one another.

For example, a weak link in California's electrical grid makes it difficult to transfer power from the southern part of the state to the north, where the blackouts have been worse.

Highways connect Miami with Seattle, phone lines link Los Angeles and New York, it is time to manage our interstate highway and phone systems with an interstate electrical grid.

And here, too, technology will make a big difference. Electricity markets used to be localized because wires could not carry electrical current over long distances. More and better wires can efficiently ship power across the country, reducing the threat of local blackouts or outages. And it's just not our electricity delivery system that has fallen behind.

The energy report projects that natural gas consumption will rise rapidly as electric utilities make greater and greater use of this environmentally friendly fuel. We will need newer, cleaner and safer pipes to move these larger quantities of natural gas -- up to 38,000 new miles of pipe and 263,000 miles of distribution lines.

We'll also need to recognize the energy potential of our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, and make it easier for buyers and sellers of energy to do business across our national borders.

And finally, we must work to build a new harmony between our energy needs and our environmental concerns.

Too often Americans are asked to take sides between energy production and environmental protection, as if people who revere the Alaska wilderness do not also care about America's energy future; as if the people who produce America's energy do not care about the planet their children will inherit. The truth is, energy production and environmental protection are not competing priorities.

They're dual aspects of a single purpose: to live well and wisely upon the earth. Just as we need a new tone in Washington, we also need a new tone in discussing energy and the environment; one that is less suspicious, less punitive, less rancorous. We've yelled at each other enough. Now it's time to listen to each other and to act.

And it's time to act.

The energy plan I lay out for the nation harnesses the power of modern markets and the potential of new technology.

It looks at today's energy problem and sees tomorrow's energy opportunity.

It addresses today's energy shortages and shows the way to tomorrow's energy abundance.

I have great faith in our country's ability to solve the energy problem, and our energy plan shows the way. But most of all, I have great faith in the American people, our land's ingenuity, our innovation. Our entrepreneurial spirits is this country's greatest of all resources. And thank God, they are never in short supply.

God bless.

----

Democrats Criticize Bush's Energy Plan

May 17, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/17/politics/17WIRE-DEMS.html

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's energy report was still being distributed Thursday when Democrats in Congress rushed out to denounce it. Even a few Republicans expressed concern that some parts will have tough going in Congress.

While the president was in Minnesota and Iowa touting the plan, Democrats were in a basement room of the U.S. Capitol, where they organized a call-in operation from people in California upset about power blackouts and high electricity and gasoline prices.

"It's the wrong choice for America," House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri said, dismissing the Bush plan as too much oil, gas, and nuclear energy and not much else.

"It ducks tough issues," such as global warming and "basically ignores conservation" said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.

Republicans embraced the plan, calling it balanced and long overdue.

"This is the first national energy plan in a generation. It is comprehensive. It is balanced. And it delivers us to energy stability and security," said Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, whose Energy and Natural Resources Committee will craft energy legislation.

Republican leaders in both the House and Senate promised to move quickly to turn the Bush proposals into legislation. The first round of hearings on the plan are schedule for next week.

Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, the No. 3 leader in the House, said he expects legislation to pass the House before the August recess. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., has set a similar schedule.

While scores of recommendations in the Bush task force report require only agency and White House action, about a fifth need legislation, including a number of tax breaks both for energy production and conservation.

A few of the proposals, such as the call to begin drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, could bring the whole energy debate grinding to a halt in the Senate, where several Democrats have vowed to filibuster any bill containing such a provision.

There are other flashpoints as well.

A Bush proposal to give the federal government the right to take property for power lines has raised concern from some western GOP lawmakers and governors, as well as property rights advocates.

"It's a work in progress," House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said, adding that the "case still has to be made" for some parts of the Bush proposals, such as Arctic refuge development.

Nevertheless, Hastert said the Bush plan "strikes the right balance."

Overriding the energy debate in Congress will be the twin issues of energy production vs. conservation, and long-term vs. short-term actions.

"Their plan offers no solution" to currently soaring electricity costs in the West and gasoline price spikes almost everywhere, said Daschle of the Republican proposals, echoing the criticism from scores of Democrats. Nor, they say, does it address development of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.

Democrats have offered their own energy package, which includes broader incentives and spending for conservation and efficiency research and for renewable energy programs.

The Democrats also are pushing legislation that would require federal energy regulators to impose temporary price caps on wholesale electricity sales in the West, where they say the power markets are dominated by a handful of power producers and marketers.

Bush has repeatedly rejected such market intervention, saying it would stifle investment in power production.

Hoping to dampen criticism, Republicans say their energy bill may go beyond what Bush has proposed in areas of renewables and efficiency, including more money for these programs than Bush proposed in February. Bush's budget cuts these programs by about one-third with no mention in the energy report that more money will be proposed.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, noting Bush's trip Thursday to a renewable energy research facility in Iowa, said "a photo op and a few nice words do not constitute a renewable energy policy."

"America needs a balanced, comprehensive approach. ... The president's plan does that," countered House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas.

-------- MILITARY

-------- china

Beijing readies China Sea exercises

May 17, 2001
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010517-73308886.htm

China is preparing to conduct large-scale military exercises in the South China Sea from Hainan island and on Woody Island, where China is building up its forces for power projection.

Defense officials said preparations for the exercises, including amphibious warfare drills, were detected by U.S. intelligence agencies over the past two weeks.

"We´re seeing preparations," said one official. He said it is not known when the maneuvers will begin.

A second official said: "There are some indications of amphibious exercise planning by the South Sea Fleet," as China calls its naval forces in the region.

The Chinese military was observed sending an advance team recently to check Woody Island in preparation for upcoming exercises, the officials said.

A third official said the military movements were "unusual" and include ground, air and naval forces on Hainan island and units on the mainland in southern China.

However, other officials said the preparations so far do not appear threatening or even worrisome.

Woody Island, the main island of the disputed Paracel island chain south of Hainan, is close to the area where the U.S. Navy EP-3E surveillance plane collided with a Chinese F-8 interceptor on April 1.

China´s military conducted a massive 11-day search effort for the pilot, Wang Wei, who apparently died after the collision in waters near the Paracels, which China calls the Xisha Islands.

The U.S. military routinely monitors Chinese military maneuvers. In 1996, Chinese war games near Taiwan were thought by the Pentagon to be a possible prelude to military action against the island.

China´s effort to extend its military power further into the South China Sea is believed to be a cause of the April 1 confrontation between the EP-3E and the F-8 jet.

China claims sovereignty over the area 200 miles from its shore, a position disputed by the United States, which recognizes only the internationally accepted 12-mile territorial limit.

China detained the 24 American crew members of the aircraft for 12 days and is still holding the high-tech aircraft.

The Chinese government is demanding that the United States halt all maritime surveillance flights, a position rejected by the Bush administration.

The White House has said the flights to monitor Chinese military activities are part of a broad regional security strategy.

According to Pentagon officials, China´s military is building up its forces to be able to conduct military operations further from its shores. It has converted more than 20 B-6D bombers to aerial refueling tankers and has based some of its air-refuelable jets on Hainan.

Military exercises have been carried out in the past on Woody Island. It is viewed by Pentagon analysts as the key strategic base for future power projection.

U.S. intelligence agencies photographed construction of fuel storage tanks on Woody Island in early 1999. The long runway and fuel depot are believed to be for future Chinese long-range flight operations, either reconnaissance or combat.

Woody Island, which Vietnam owned until 1974, is strategically located south of Hainan island. Pentagon officials said the Chinese could use it as a base for conducting military operations against the Philippines, Taiwan or Vietnam.

Tensions between China and the Philippines have increased in recent months over Chinese activities in the Spratly Islands, an island chain close to the Philippines where China also has been increasing its military presence.

Richard Fisher, a specialist on the Chinese military with the Jamestown Foundation, said he believes the upcoming Chinese exercises are linked to the recent surveillance aircraft incident.

"First and foremost, this would be a response to the recent incident," said Mr. Fisher, a former aide to Rep. Christopher Cox, California Republican.

"It also would serve to remind the Vietnamese of China´s expansive South China Sea claims, and also would be aimed at Manila -- to warn the Filipinos against a revived alliance with the United States."

As for Woody Island, Mr. Fisher said the outpost has become a "secret aircraft carrier" in the South China Sea for China.

Preparations for the Chinese war games coincide with the start of a major U.S. military exercise in Thailand known as Cobra Gold.

The U.S.-Thai-Singapore military exercise began Tuesday and will continue through May 29.

This year´s exercises for the first time include Singaporean troops and observers from Australia, South Korea, France, Malaysia, Indonesia, Mongolia, Japan, the Philippines and Sri Lanka.

U.S. Special Forces commandos also are in Thailand training Thai government anti-drug forces, in areas close to China´s border.

China´s military has been linked by congressional investigators to illegal drug trafficking in Burma.

-------- iraq

U.S.-British Plan Seeks to Restore Trade With Iraq

May 17, 2001
By BARBARA CROSSETTE
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/17/world/17NATI.html?searchpv=nytToday

UNITED NATIONS, May 16 - Britain, backed by the United States, will propose next week that the United Nations lift the 11-year ban on international trade with Iraq, British officials said today.

The long-awaited British-American proposal, if adopted by the Security Council, would prohibit only the sale of a specific list of arms and weapons-related items to Iraq.

But the plan would require Iraq to let international arms inspections resume before any sanctions could be lifted, and it would reject Iraqi demands to return to Baghdad the control over money Iraq earns from oil sales. That money would still be deposited into a United Nations-supervised escrow account, to be drawn on for imports. Iraq has already said it would accept nothing short of an end to the embargo, and it expelled international inspectors in 1998, so it is likely to reject the plan as inadequate.

"The measures that we are proposing in effect will mean the end of sanctions on ordinary civilian imports into Iraq," a British official said today. "We are trying to agree on more focused controls on Iraq's weapons and illegal oil exports," he said.

Although the new proposals, representing a fundamental shift in the way the United Nations will deal with Iraq, were developed jointly, Bush administration officials appeared reluctant to comment publicly on the plan, leaving the British alone out front today.

The administration's approach has many critics in Washington, especially among conservatives who believe Mr. Bush should increase pressure on President Saddam Hussein in the hope of bringing down his regime. But Mr. Bush, in an interview with The New York Times in January, likened the Iraqi sanctions to "Swiss cheese" and went along with a proposal by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to focus on enforcing sanctions on military transfers.

"You undercut all sanctions if you try to stop everything," one State Department official said. "It simply doesn't work to try to lock up the country, especially when so many other countries are willing to turn the other way when goods are smuggled across the border. So it's time to try a different approach."

The proposal comes several years after deep fissures developed in the Security Council over the usefulness or ethical justification for the sweeping embargo that the Security Council imposed under the last Bush administration and which the Clinton administration demanded it keep in place. In recent years, rising oil prices also gave Mr. Hussein enhanced economic power that helped reduce his diplomatic isolation, as old and new trading partners joined in calls for a lifting of sanctions.

A long and difficult council debate is expected. The other permanent members of the council with veto power, China, France and Russia, which have argued for a quicker suspension of sanctions, did not comment on the proposals today.

In Washington, Richard Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said that the administration was in "a sort of intermediate stage" of consultations with Security Council members and nations near Iraq. "We don't have a proposal at this point to present."

Mr. Boucher did indicate, however, that the administration supported the plan in principle. "The goal of this process is to control effectively Iraq's ability to buy weapons, to control Iraq's ability to threaten its neighbors, especially to control Iraq's ability to threaten its region with weapons of mass destruction," he said. "So, on the one hand, you will have a set of controls that do that. On the other hand, we will smooth out the process and enable civilian goods to reach the Iraqi people."

The British official briefing reporters said that the basic plan was ready to be presented to the Security Council as a resolution as early as next week.

"We've been consulting other Security Council members and key states in the region, and have proposed some ideas, and so far we are receiving a reasonably positive response," the British official said.

Ambassador James Cunningham, the acting American representative on the Council, said today that he hoped to see the resolution adopted by the end of this month, but refused to discuss the proposal in detail.

A review and renewal of the existing "oil for food" program in Iraq is due by June 4, and British and American officials would like to replace that with the new plan at that time.

There has been a steady erosion of the isolation of Iraq, as neighboring countries and other nations began to increase trade and send flights to Baghdad's newly reopened airport. At the same time, Arab nations and other opponents of sanctions continue to criticize them for causing unacceptable hardship to the Iraqi people.

"Under this system, Iraq will be able to meet all of its civilian needs," the British official said. "If our proposals are adopted by the Security Council, Iraq will have no excuse for the suffering of the Iraqi people."

The new plan for Iraq marks another stage in a long-running attempt by the Security Council to deal effectively with an Iraqi government noted for its record of trying to create nuclear, chemical and biological weapons before and possibly since its invasion and occupation of neighboring Kuwait in August 1990.

After the war to free Kuwait that followed in early 1991, Iraq was told by the Security Council that it would remain under a strict embargo on oil sales and weapons purchases until it had been fully disarmed to the satisfaction of United Nations inspectors. Goods like food and medicine were never included in the embargo.

By the end of that year, when much of Iraq's arsenal was being destroyed but it was clear that Mr. Hussein was neither going to cooperate with the inspection system in ferreting out undeclared arms nor use what money he had to alleviate civilian hardships, the Security Council offered Iraq the chance to buy more civilian goods through controlled oil sales. Iraq refused, and it was not until 1996 that a revised oil- for-food program was accepted.

That program has been steadily expanded, until Iraq is now free to import a wide range of goods and equipment. But it is still required to present a list of proposed purchases to the United Nations periodically. That rule would now be lifted.

Under the new British-American proposal, Iraq is still required to readmit arms inspectors, who have not been allowed to work in the country since 1998, and to be declared free of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons or components as well as missiles with a range of over 150 kilometers. Until then, the sanctions imposed in 1990 and reaffirmed repeatedly since remain in place.

The proposal requires that two concrete lists of prohibited weapons and weapons-related goods be drawn up, one for weapons of mass destruction and the other for conventional arms. Such purchases could not be made by Iraq, and questionable contracts could still be referred to the Council's sanctions committee. That panel, the British official said, could deny a sale entirely, exercise a line- item veto or ask that United Nations monitors track the ultimate destination and use of a suspect item in Iraq.

In general, the new proposals rely heavily on United Nations monitoring, which could be problematic. Britain and the United States have pressed for more monitors in Iraq, but this has been rejected by some of Iraq's supporters. The Iraqi government could simply bar monitors.

The free flow of civilian goods into Iraq would place a heavy responsibility for vigilance on Iraq's neighbors, since arms inspectors of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission are concerned about the possibility of Iraq's hiding material for arms programs in civilian shipments.

On a recent visit to the Middle East, General Powell discussed these next steps with countries in the region. Diplomats say that Jordan, Turkey and Syria would have to be reassured that they would not suffer economically if they cooperated with the United Nations.

---

U.S. Switches Iraq Policy

May 17, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-Iraq.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States is abandoning an unpopular 11-year campaign to deny Iraq consumer goods in the hope that the plight of the Iraqi people would cause them to turn against President Saddam Hussein.

Lining up with Britain, which stood virtually alone with the United States on maintaining harsher sanctions, the Bush administration also is urging tighter controls on export to Iraq of arms and weapons-related items.

The policy shift took four months to crystallize as Secretary of State Colin Powell vied with the Pentagon and other sectors of the administration over imported items with potential application to Iraq's military.

Even now, as American diplomats consult with other governments on a prospective U.N. resolution to be introduced next week to lift the economic sanctions, administration officials are debating privately which so-called dual-use items to ban and which to approve for export to Iraq, a senior U.S. official told The Associated Press.

``We're working toward what will be a significant change in our approach to Iraq in the United Nations,'' State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Thursday. ``The focus is on strengthening controls to prevent Iraq from rebuilding military capability in weapons of mass destruction while facilitating a broader flow of goods to the civilian population of Iraq.''

Powell is inclined to take a lenient view of such items as water pumps and refrigerated trucks, which theoretically could be used for military purposes but are much more likely to lessen the pain of the Iraqi people.

A list is being compiled of items that would remain off-limits to Iraq, their value and their use. At the same time, American diplomats are resisting efforts by other governments to go further in the direction of leniency.

The U.N. sanctions on weapons and consumer goods were imposed as part of a U.S.-led drive to reverse Iraq's annexation of Kuwait in 1990. Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Persian Gulf War, which liberated Kuwait but left Saddam in power.

Assistant Secretary of State David Welch, who is in charge of international organizations and oversees U.S. diplomacy at the United Nations, is ending a trip to Europe, where he consulted with French, Belgian and other officials on the resolution to lift sanctions due to be introduced next week.

British officials have said they received positive responses to the proposal from, among others, France, China and Russia, besides the United States and Britain the only members of the U.N. Security Council with veto power. To varying degrees, all three have opposed the current sanctions.

In Moscow, Russia's deputy foreign minister said too little is known about the new proposal to determine his country's position now. ``It is clearly premature,'' Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ordzhonikidze told the Interfax news agency and said it does not resolve political problems Russia insists be settled.

Boucher said the proposal ``obviously will be a subject'' of discussion between Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and Powell when the Russian visits Friday, seeing both the secretary of state and President Bush.

For Powell, who is inclined to take a more moderate course in foreign policy and security than Bush's harder-line advisers, the policy shift reflects both his own instincts and advice offered by Arab and other governments.

``The point is to work together to help the Iraqi people at the same time as we control the ability of the regime in Baghdad to develop weapons of mass destruction,'' the State Department's Boucher said.

The plan would not require Iraq to let international arms inspections to resume before consumer sanctions could be lifted, Boucher said. ``That was never part of the picture,'' he said.

On the other hand, Boucher said, to get all sanctions removed Iraq must let the inspectors return. They have been excluded for 2 1/2 years.

----

UN Envoys Query Quick Adoption of New Iraqi Plans

May 17, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-iraq-un.html

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - China and other U.N. Security Council envoys raised doubts on Thursday whether a dramatic British-American offer to ease sanctions against Baghdad could be approved quickly. Iraq objects to any plan short of lifting the embargoes entirely.

Diplomats expect intense negotiations among the five council powers with veto power -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- over the specifics on the new plan, such as a list of goods that would still be barred from Iraq.

And France is known to be pushing for allowing foreign investments, which the United States and Britain oppose.

Britain, working with its American counterparts, is preparing to offer as early as Monday a draft Security Council resolution that would eliminate bans on civilian goods imported to Iraq but tighten controls on military-related materials.

The aim is to get a vote in the 15-member council by May 31, before the next six-month phase of the U.N. humanitarian oil-for-food program begins on June 4.

But the measure is not expected to contain details on how to stop smuggling at Iraq's borders as the United States wants, a risk in loosening restrictions without stepping up controls. A British official conceded on Wednesday ``the neighboring states are very worried about economic retribution from Iraq.''

To go into force, the resolution would need a list of military-related items banned as well as new procedures that drop much of the current methods of approving Iraqi goods.

OIL-FOR-FOOD PROGRAM

China's deputy representative, Shen Guofang, told reporters he hoped the oil-for-food program would be rolled over on the same terms and then followed by a separate resolution. The new proposals ``contain a lot of detailed things and complicated elements. We hope it will be separate,'' Shen said.

France, diplomats said, is expected to advocate relaxed restrictions on foreign investment, now limited to helping Iraq upgrade its oil industry. ``For France, freeing the economy means foreign help in goods and services,'' one envoy said.

Russia, excepted to take the toughest position, appeared unimpressed by the proposals. ``There are too many unclear points in the proposals and questions, to which we have not got answers in the course of preliminary consultations,'' Sergei Ordzhonikidze, a deputy foreign minister, said in Moscow, according to the Interfax news agency.

For Iraq, any move to tighten or liberalize the sanctions appears to be putting another regime in place to keep the embargoes going for years to come.

A Thursday editorial in al-Thawra, mouthpiece of the ruling Ba'ath Party, said alleged ``smart sanctions aim to strengthen the embargo imposed on Iraq for more than 10 years and is a plan to avoid world criticism.''

CIVILIAN GOODS ALLOWED IN

Iraq has been under blanket trade sanctions since it invaded Kuwait, except for humanitarian supplies, with an increasing amount of civilian goods allowed in over the past several years.

To ease the impact of the sanctions on ordinary Iraqis, an oil-for-food deal began in late 1996. This allows Iraq to sell unlimited amounts of oil, with proceeds put in a U.N. escrow account. The funds are then used to buy goods Baghdad orders.

Currently, food and medicine as well as such items as bricks and educational materials, are allowed to reach Iraq without being approved by the council's sanctions committee.

Under the new plan, other supplies from bicycles to sewing machines can be imported without the committee's consent.

But the draft resolution would maintain the existing escrow account into which Iraqi oil revenues are deposited. The United Nations then pays suppliers of goods Iraq orders.

``In essence, we are ending sanctions on ordinary civilian imports and replacing it with a focused control regime,'' said the British official. ``If our proposals are adopted, Iraq will have no excuse for the suffering of the Iraqi people.''

To get sanctions suspended entirely, Iraq has to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors to make sure it no longer has programs for weapons of mass destruction. Baghdad has refused to allow inspectors to return since the December 1998 bombing raids by the United States and Britain.

The new British draft is separate from inspection demands, contained in December 1999 resolution that Iraq rejects.

In Geneva, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he backed attempts to make life easier for ordinary Iraqis.

``We all know that the public at large, and also the region, have been very concerned about the impact of sanctions on the average Iraqi, on the Iraqi economy, and particularly on children. So we should support any attempts that will ease the impact of sanctions on the population and allow the people to have normal lives,'' he told reporters on Thursday.

-------- israel

Israel's army - A new, perhaps dangerous, freedom
Ariel Sharon has given Israel's army its head to take crucial fighting decisions

May 17th 2001
JERUSALEM From The Economist print edition
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=626535

TRIGGER-HAPPY troops set loose? Questions about the response of Israeli soldiers facing Palestinian demonstrators are being asked, and not just by Palestinians. But suspicions about individual behaviour are less relevant than the clear fact that the army, given its head by Ariel Sharon, has made a deliberate decision to take the fight to the Palestinians, even at the risk of escalation and of deepening Israel's international problems.

Palestinian-Israeli bloodletting can be savage, on both sides. But one incident, among several horrifying ones, is revealing of the army's new attitude and tactics. This was the killing on May 14th of five junior Palestinian police guards at a quiet checkpoint on the outskirts of Bituniya, a village that lies on the edge of Palestinian-controlled Ramallah. Two of the policemen were on guard duty. Four others were inside their makeshift hut, either asleep or preparing a simple meal. Israeli forces briefly raked the area with machinegun and sniper fire. Five of the guards died instantly, and the sixth was taken to hospital in shock.

The precise circumstances are still murky. The Israeli army's first account said that the unit saw some mysterious figures "who were where they should not have been" and opened fire. Later, a government official conceded that the unit had been on a deliberate mission seeking out what the army believed was a squad from "Force 17", the Palestinian presidential guard, which the Israelis claim had been using the checkpoint as cover from which to fire on nearby Israeli positions. "We're increasingly having to operate in what is in effect an open battlefield situation, and in hostile zones any unidentified figures are automatically treated as foe with no questions asked," explained the official.

Then, on May 15th, Lieut-General Shaul Mofaz, Israel's army chief, taciturnly told a Knesset committee that "the results of the operation were not as intended". There will be a further army inquiry but, at least at this stage, General Mofaz offered no apology. "When the gloves come off, it seems that the hands become dirty very quickly," observed Chemi Shalev, a well-informed columnist, in Maariv.

The Israeli army, it seems, has blurred its previous distinctions between defence and attack as it redefines the conflict, seeking to wrest the initiative, and to pre-empt Palestinian tactics. This ties in with the admission by Israel's defence minister, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, two weeks ago that he had given field commanders (even junior commanders) blanket approval in principle to carry out incursions into areas in the West Bank and Gaza that are fully under Palestinian control. They no longer need to seek government approval for such violations of Palestinian territory, said Mr Ben-Eliezer, provided that there was an imediate security need for offensive action.

Military sources confirm that the army has eased some of its stringent regulations. It is also, like many other armies at a time of war, becoming increasingly economical with the truth. A couple of blatant lies were picked up by the international press on May 15th, the date when Palestinians mourn their displacement by Israel's creation 53 years ago. It was a cruel day: four Palestinians were killed, and one Israeli woman, when her car was ambushed in revenge, said a Palestinian organisation, for the death of the five policemen. But bulletins put out by the Israeli army's press office during the day could be seen by journalists to be totally at odds with what was happening on the ground.

Some Israelis are alarmed by the army's new freedoms, seeing them as a recipe for coming disaster. They point out that an Israeli unit, pushing its way violently into a Palestinian city or town, could become embroiled in a tight military situation. Or that the results of such an operation could escalate out of control beyond anything the military commanders might have imagined.

Others worry about the lack of accountability. In the previous intifada in the late 1980s and early 1990s any deviant actions by Israeli troops generally led to the soldiers being called to account. But there has been precious little of that during the past seven months.

There is also little public debate about operations that might once have been damned by many Israelis as excessive or errant. This in turn is seen as a product of the prevailing cast of mind: having determined that the Palestinians were solely responsible for the failure of the peace process, Israelis hold them responsible for the ensuing conflict. This remains the consensus. Even so, bubbles of doubt are being expressed at the results of army freedom.

----

ISRAEL: U.S. BUILDS BASE FOR ISRAELIS

May 17, 2001 World Briefing
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/17/world/17BRIE.html?searchpv=nytToday

Israeli and American officials have broken ground for a $266 million Israeli military base that is being built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and paid for by the United States under an agreement signed in 1998. The new base, in the southern Negev region, is replacing an Israeli Army training site in the West Bank. Martin Indyk, the American ambassador to Israel, called the project a symbol "of America's continuing commitment to Israel's security." William A. Orme Jr. (NYT)

-------- japan

Japan Calls for Cut in U.S. Forces

May 17, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-US-Japan-Military.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Okinawa's governor urged a cut in U.S. military forces on his southern Japanese island Thursday, a message he has repeated in meetings across the U.S. capital this week.

``We question why such extensive military bases must be stationed in Japan and we have a very strong feeling toward the excessiveness of the military presence,'' Keiichi Inamine said in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Located 1,000 miles southwest of Tokyo, Okinawa is home to half of the 47,000 U.S. military forces stationed in Japan. It has been an important U.S. base in the Pacific since it was occupied at the end of World War II, but residents have long sought a reduction in U.S. presence, complaining of crime by servicemen, crowding on the island, environmental issues and other problems.

Inamine came to the states to explain the problem again, also planning stops in New York and San Jose, Calif., to encourage investment in Okinawa.

He met U.S. lawmakers, and also met 35 minutes Wednesday at the Pentagon with Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

Defense spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Terry Sutherland said Inamine expressed appreciation for the role of U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific region and reiterated the Okinawan government's view that the U.S. military presence on the island should be further reduced.

Wolfowitz made no commitment to pursue further cuts.

On Tuesday, Inamine was greeted at the State Department by Secretary of State Colin Powell and met at greater length with Powell's deputy Richard Armitage.

The governor presented diplomats with a letter spelling out his points about U.S. forces in Okinawa, and officials promised to consider them, the State Department said.

-------- u.n.

UN Climate Chief: Bush Plan Disastrous for Climate

May 17, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-bush-en.html?searchpv=reuters

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - The head of the U.N. forum on climate change Jan Pronk on Thursday dubbed President Bush's new energy plan a ``disastrous development'' for international efforts to slow output of global warming gases.

Pronk, who is also the Dutch environment minister, told a Dutch television news program the Bush plan would ``undoubtedly'' lead to increased output of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, although he still awaited proposals from the world's biggest polluter on how to cut emissions.

In a speech earlier on Thursday, Bush called for increasing U.S. reliance on oil, coal and nuclear power, while offering $10 billion in tax credits for conservation measures.

``In terms of the possibility of forming an integrated policy (to cut emissions), this is a disastrous development,'' Pronk said.

A United Nation's scientific body has said greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels, will contribute to warming of the earth's surface. That in turn will lead to higher ocean levels, dramatic changes in weather patterns and greater frequency of severe storms.

In March, Bush drew an international outcry by rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, which calls on industrialized countries to cut output of carbon dioxide by an average of 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2010.

Bush said he rejected the pact, which has not been formally adopted by the international community, because it did not require emissions cuts by developing nations and would damage the U.S. economy.

Pronk reiterated earlier statements that he would press other countries to move forward with the Kyoto pact without the United States, but hoped to draw the country back into the treaty at later date.

``I'm trying now to keep the rest of the group together,'' he said.

Negotiations to add teeth to the Kyoto Protocol broke down in November in The Hague after the European Union balked at U.S. proposals to use forests and farms as 'sinks' to soak up carbon from the atmosphere.

Those talks are set to resume in Bonn in July, although many countries are showing reluctance to join the pact without the United States.

Pronk said he would travel to Japan on Saturday to try keep the U.S. negotiating partner in the talks on board.

``If that is successful then we have a good basis for an agreement with Europe and Japan which can pull in other countries. But if that fails, then there isn't really any reason to start the Bonn conference,'' he said.

Pronk also took aim at the U.S. administration's claim that cutting carbon dioxide emissions to slow global warming would be too expensive.

``The cost of prevention is much lower than the cost of the consequences from a worsening of the climate,'' he said.

-------- u.s.

Charges Against Sailor Dismissed

The Associated Press
Thursday, May 17, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010517/aponline223202_000.htm

BREMERTON, Wash. -- A military judge has dismissed all charges against a Navy missile technician accused of sabotaging cables on a Trident nuclear submarine, a month before the sailor's court-martial was to begin.

A Navy spokesman said it was likely that the charges would be refiled.

Petty Officer 2nd Class Ernesto G. Cimmino, 23, of Scotia, N.Y., was arrested Nov. 26 as the USS Alaska sat at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard near Seattle. The sub was being overhauled to handle larger and more powerful Trident II missiles.

He pleaded innocent last month to 14 counts of sabotage, theft of Navy property, illegal drug use, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and other offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Capt. David White dismissed the charges, citing a technical error in the Navy's case. The ruling, issued last week, was disclosed Wednesday by spokesman Lt. Kevin Stephens,

"It's very likely that the Navy will review the procedures, then refile charges, ensuring that it is done correctly," Stephens said. "There is still substantial evidence to proceed with a trial."

Military prosecutors allege Cimmino was using drugs when he either cut or nicked the cables. He has confessed to damaging up to 20 cables so he wouldn't have to go to sea, prosecutor Lt. Cmdr. Linda Christensen said in March.

Defense lawyer Lt. Ryan McBrayer has said there was no evidence his client committed any other offenses beyond damaging the cables.

----

Pentagon Review Puts Emphasis on Long-Range Arms in Pacific

May 17, 2001
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/17/world/17MILI.html?pagewanted=all

WASHINGTON, May 16 - A confidential Pentagon strategy review has cast the Pacific as the most important region for military planners and calls for the development of new long-range arms to counter China's military power.

The review concludes that American bases in the Pacific are likely to become increasingly vulnerable as China and other potential adversaries develop more accurate missiles.

So it urges that the American military become less dependent on military bases and put more emphasis on fighting from a distance.

The review is part of a broad effort by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to transform the military after the cold war, a shift that would redirect the focus of American military planning from Europe to Asia.

It is directed by Andrew W. Marshall, a 79-year-old civilian analyst at the Pentagon and a close adviser to Mr. Rumsfeld, who has long pressed for a radical overhaul of America's armed forces.

But in the Pacific, the review has drawn a skeptical response from Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the head of the United States Pacific Command and the top American military man in the region.

While supporting the call for change, Admiral Blair believes China will present less of a military threat to American military bases and naval forces in the region. Military officers in the region are also concerned that the diminished importance of bases close to the action in a new Pentagon strategy could also make it harder for the United States to maintain political support in Japan and South Korea for a continued American presence there.

"I think we have the tools to keep both air and naval power anywhere we want to in the theater and can for some quite time," Admiral Blair said in an interview last week at his Pacific headquarters in Honolulu.

"If you want to look at serious forces designed to keep the U.S. out of part of the world, look at what the Russians did in the 70's - dozens of submarines, hundreds of long-range bombers, dozens of satellites, lots of practice," Admiral Blair added. "That was a serious system which we were going to have a hard time fighting our way through. Nobody in Asia is even close to that."

The stark differences between the Pentagon's most futuristic analyst and the military's top officer in the Pacific is part of a broad-range debate over the future of the military that is being carried out behind closed doors. Supporters of Mr. Marshall, who has urged a "revolution in military affairs," often cast the military as hide-bound. But many in the military see Mr. Marshall as too divorced from the day-to-day realities of operating forces in the world, and too much enamored of high technology.

Mr. Rumsfeld has sent drafts of the review to the chiefs of the military services and senior American military commanders around the world for comment. A senior Pentagon official said that the strategy was being adapted in light of their comments, but that key themes about the potential threat to American bases and the need for long- range systems have been preserved.

Mr. Rumsfeld plans to preview the main tenets of the Pentagon's thinking to Congress next week. President Bush may follow up when he addresses the United States Naval Academy several days later.

With a Chinese military buildup near Taiwan and an unsteady peace on the Korean Peninsula, it is not surprising that the Pacific has become the most important region for American military planners.

"That is where all the challenges and threats lie," said a senior Defense Department official.

Certainly, no headquarters faces tougher challenges than the United States Pacific Command. It oversees military deployments and exercises and plans military operations in a region that spans 105 million square miles and includes 43 nations.

The command is responsible for the defense of Japan and South Korea. And if President Bush gave the go-ahead, it would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack.

Increasingly, much of the command's work also involves efforts to strengthen ties with other militaries in the region. Last year, the command conducted 300 exercises with 37 countries. Military officials say such programs are important not only to maintain stability in the Pacific but also to encourage new patterns of cooperation in which other nations can take the lead in peacekeeping, as was the case in East Timor.

And the command does so using only a relative handful of overseas bases and 100,000 troops in South Korea, Japan and at sea. Another 200,000 troops of the command's troops are stationed in Alaska, Hawaii and the continental United States.

Under Admiral Blair's tutelage, a number of moves are under way to strengthen the American military posture in the Pacific. The Navy plans to move three submarines to Guam. The Air Force has already stored conventional-armed cruise missiles on Guam, the only site outside the continental United States where they are stored.

Admiral Blair has also proposed that American aircraft carriers spend a week or two in the Western Pacific on their way to the Persian Gulf and back, according to Navy officers. Another aircraft carrier, the Kitty Hawk, operates from Japan. So this would temporarily increase the American naval presence in the region, a step Singapore has encouraged by building a new dock for aircraft carriers.

But the review overseen by Mr. Marshall is far more radical.

The conclusions of Mr. Marshall's review are contained in a paper on "Defense Strategy Review." It highlights the importance of Asia and it notes the challenges the United States faces in operating region: the vast distances, sparse structure of military bases and the slow but steady Chinese military buildup.

The basic analysis in the review comes down to this: Adversaries like China are developing new longer- range weapons, like surface-to-surface missiles, as well as chemical weapons and biological weapons. That will create a serious new threat to military bases and aircraft carriers in the region, a problem the Pentagon has dubbed "access denial."

The United States, the review maintains, should develop missile defenses. Even so, however, it will be compelled to operate its naval and air forces further away from the Chinese mainland and fight at a greater distance.

----

Rumsfeld Meets Lawmakers on Defense

New York Times
May 17, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-Defense.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is ``not close'' to finishing his top-to-bottom review of the nation's military strategy, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said Thursday.

Rumsfeld met Thursday with the chairmen and top Democrats of the Armed Services and defense Appropriations panels of both houses of Congress, but he gave them no specifics on changes he may be planning.

``We talked generally about many, many subjects and he's agreed to come back and speak to my full committee on an informal basis,'' probably next week, said Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Asked how near Rumsfeld was to finishing the review President Bush ordered him to undertake, Warner said, ``He's not close.''

Instead of discussing that review, the hourlong meeting focused on immediate budgetary matters, he said.

Warner's House counterpart, Rep. Bob Stump, R-Ariz., said the House session with Rumsfeld was similarly unrevealing, and turned into a meeting to arrange a second meeting next week ``so he could tell us what he has in mind.''

Stump said it was worthwhile if only to get administration officials in the habit of keeping Congress informed: ``I complained at one point that I didn't think they were doing it in a timely fashion.''

Separately, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz made the rounds on Capitol Hill to inform lawmakers behind closed doors about his just-concluded consultations with European and Asian leaders on Bush's plan to build a national missile defense.

His presentation prompted one of the Hill's most persistent opponents of that proposal, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., to change his view of it.

The key, said Biden, was Wolfowitz's presentation of what he said to the foreign officials.

``That all by itself seemed to be a different tonal message than what Bush ... is saying to us,'' said Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The message reflected ``more open-mindedness about unilateral withdrawal'' from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia than Bush had indicated in his May 1 speech outlining his defense strategy, Biden said.

In the May 1 speech, Bush said the United States must move ``beyond the constraints'' of the ABM treaty and build a national missile defense system that could knock incoming missiles out of the sky.

Some allies as well as Russia and China have criticized that declaration, fearing it would trigger a new arms race.

Using business school terms, the review talks about the need to develop America's "core competence" in several key areas: long-range missiles, space operations, a navy capable of operating on the high seas, and transport planes to move men and material in a crisis. The United States would strive to be so dominant in these areas as to "lock out" any competition.

One purpose of the strategy review is to establish a framework for developing new weapons systems. Officials familiar with the strategy review say it implicitly encourages the development of long-range warplanes, new long-range precision- guided weapons, the purchase of more aerial refueling tankers and the use of hard-to-target weapons like submarines.

It also means that the American military would have to find new ways of operating in the field. For example, the American military would not be able to keep large quantities of supplies within range of enemy missiles.

"When you insert forces you have to deploy and operate in a way that produces fewer targets," said a senior Defense Department official who is familiar with the review. "You cannot build up large stockpiles of support equipment. So we should try to have forces that require less support and to supply them in new ways."

But Admiral Blair and other senior military officers in the Pacific have a very different perspective. While Mr. Marshall and his supporters tend to look at the distant future, Admiral Blair has called for a more step-by-step approach in setting new military requirements and developing weapons systems.

The key strategic questions, however, are how serious the threat is to American bases and aircraft carriers and how the United States should respond to that threat.

Admiral Blair, like many officers interviewed in the Pacific, said it would be very difficult for the Chinese to attack American bases and naval forces in the Pacific. The Chinese, he said, not only need to develop long-range missiles, but also the reconnaissance and communications systems to target them.

"It is not just a question of the range of the missile," he said. "It is a tough, tough problem. It has to with surveillance systems, the ability to get information back and the corrections you have to make mid-course."

The United States, Admiral Blair adds, could blunt the threat to American bases and aircraft carriers near the Chinese coast by knocking out China's reconnaissance and communications systems. The United States is not compelled to wage war from further away.

"The Chinese do not have an over- the-horizon target system that is capable of hitting U.S. forces and there are many, many countermeasures to all of the aspects of that kind of system which are available," Admiral Blair said. "I think that using this projection of what the Chinese are now doing as a rationale for the U.S. having to flow back out of Asia is just wrong. I think the forces we have can operate there."

Admiral Blair said that he had asked for some new systems, but his list is very different from that singled out by Mr. Marshall. The emphasis is on command and control and surveillance, not high-tech weapons for long-range strikes.

And while Mr. Marshall's strategy review recommends that the Pentagon should place more focus on possible confrontations with major powers, which in the Pacific means China, Admiral Blair takes a broader view of the American military and puts more emphasis on allies.

In addition to preparing for war, he and other officers in the region stress, the American armed forces can help defuse tensions by interacting with other militaries in the region, he says. He has also argued that the political outcome in China is not determined.

"The ultimate business of the U.S. military is to make it a place where Americans can trade, travel and interact in peaceful ways," he said, referring to the Pacific. "That is, build on an alliance structure."

-------- OTHER

-------- alternative energy

President's Energy Plan is 'Useful First Step,' Wind Energy Association Says
Trade Group Supports Wind Portion of Proposal, Calls for Stronger Measures on Renewable Energy

May 17
American Wind Energy Association
http://ens.lycos.com/e-wire/May01/17May0103.html

WASHINGTON, DC, The national energy program announced today by President Bush is "a useful first step" toward recognizing the value of wind and other renewable energy sources, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) said.

AWEA said it is pleased that the Administration plan calls for extension of the federal wind energy production tax credit (PTC) and for a review of previously-proposed cuts in federal renewable energy research and development (R&D funding).

"Extending the PTC and revisiting the R&D budget cuts are important and valuable actions," commented AWEA Executive Director Randall Swisher, "but there is still much to be done if we are to have an energy policy that is truly balanced among conventional energy sources, efficiency, and renewables."

Swisher said further action is needed to develop a "serious renewable energy agenda for the nation." For wind, he said, additional necessary measures include:

A 30% investment tax credit for small wind systems (below 75 kilowatts in capacity, suitable for household or small business use).

A directive to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to take steps to integrate intermittent electricity-generating resources like wind into the electric utility transmission system.

A Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), which would require that a certain minimum percentage of electricity generated in the U.S.--AWEA has previously endorsed 10% by the year 2010--be produced by new renewable energy power plants.

A requirement that federal government agencies purchase an increasing percentage of their energy needs from renewable energy suppliers.

Increased R&D funding to continue driving the price of wind-generated electricity down.

"The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) has recently raised its target for installed wind capacity in the European Union for 2010 from 40,000 MW to 60,000 MW," said Swisher, "because it has become evident that the lower target will be surpassed." Sixty thousand megawatts of wind generating capacity are equivalent to 20 to 25 new 1,000-MW nuclear power plants.

AWEA said it projected in 1995 that global installed wind capacity would reach 18,500 MW (requiring investment of roughly $18 billion) by 2005. Instead, that total will be surpassed before the end of this year.

In the U.S., wind energy's growth is surging, with about 1,500 MW of new capacity likely to be installed this year, a 60% increase over the approximately 2,600 megawatts (MW) that were on line at the end of 2000. By year's end, U.S. wind capacity will be nearly triple what it was at the end of 1997, just four years earlier. Texas alone will account for about a third of the new additions and will more than triple its wind energy generating capacity this year.

"Wind plants can be built much more quickly than other power plants, and they are a clean, affordable source of electricity," Swisher said. "U.S.wind energy potential is vast--equal to or exceeding the oil reserves of Saudia Arabia. We need a far more aggressive plan to make use of it."

AWEA, formed in 1974, is the national trade association of the U.S. wind energy industry. The association's membership includes turbine manufacturers, wind project developers, utilities, academicians, and interested individuals. More information on wind energy is available at the AWEA web site: www.awea.org

----

FPL to build Kansas wind farm to power 33,000 homes

USA: May 17, 2001
Story by Eileen Moustakis
REUTERS
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10843

NEW YORK - FPL Group Inc. subsidiary FPL Energy LLC said yesterday it will build, own and operate a 110-megawatt wind farm in Kansas, the largest in the state and big enough to power 33,000 homes.

The company will sell the electricity output from the plant to Utilicorp United under a multiyear contract, the company said in a statement.

Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed.

FPL Energy will construct 170 wind turbines at a site in Gray County, approximately three miles east of Montezuma in southwestern Kansas, with construction slated to begin this spring and expected to be completed by the end of 2001.

The turbines will provide enough electricity to power approximately 33,000 homes in Kansas and Missouri.

FPL Energy is the largest generator of wind power, operating wind farms in Iowa, Texas, Minnesota, Oregon and California, with nearly 1,000 MW of capacity and a net ownership of approximately 600 MW.

The company has announced additional wind projects that will add approximately 870 MW to its portfolio by the end of 2001.

FPL Group's principal subsidiary is Florida Power & Light Co., which serves approximately 3.9 million customers in Florida.

Kansas City, Mo.-based UtiliCorp United has more than four million customers in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Spain, Germany, Norway, New Zealand and Australia.

-----

Veggie-diesel to hit streets in San Francisco

Thursday, May 17, 2001
By Reuters
http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2001/05/05172001/reu_veggiediesel_43571.asp

NEW YORK - California motorists angry at Big Oil over high fuel prices will soon have the option to power their diesel engines with vegetable oil - but it won't help their wallets.

The nation's first retail biodiesel filling station will throw open its doors in the Bay area on May 23, offering soy, palm, and corn-based diesel fuel at $1.75 to $2.15 a gallon, depending on the grade. Conventional diesel prices in California are between $1.60 and $1.70.

The station is a joint project between biodiesel producer World Energy Alternatives and local fuel provider Olympian.

"This comes at an opportune time, given the recent challenges to our energy security," said a World Energy spokesman. "It shows that it's possible to supplement our petroleum supply with renewable fuels."

Biodiesel, which can also be made using recycled cooking oil from restaurants, is used by some government fleets of cars, trucks, and buses and is considered environmentally friendly. The U.S. Department of Agriculture predicted in February that biodiesel production could increase by 36.5 million gallons by the end of 2001.

The product, however, has been kept at arm's length by policy makers because it is more expensive, doesn't work well in low temperatures, and degrades natural rubber - present in older engines.

Minnesota tabled a bill in March that called for the state's diesel to contain five percent of the vegetable-based fuel after a trucking association opposed it.

World Energy said it was working on ways to bring down the cost of biodiesel, including using cooking oil from dump sites, and was exploring technologies to improve the fuel's performance in cold weather.

----

Web site tracks environmental tax incentives, grants and rebates

Thursday, May 17, 2001,
Environmental News Network
http://enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/05/05172001/taxincentive_43565.asp

A federal database now serves as the nation's most comprehensive online resource for programs and incentives to promote renewable energy, from loans to install wind power facilities to rebates for solar panel installations in office buildings.

The Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE) tracks information on financial incentives and regulatory policies, as well as awareness and investment programs available at the state, utility, and local levels.

The Web site presents a summary of the renewable energy programs and incentives available in 45 communities in 23 states. A colorful table shows at a glance what cities and states offer green pricing or purchasing, tax incentives, grants, rebates and loans, and solar or wind accessability.

Rebates are the most common local financial incentive type, available primarily for solar water heating and photovoltaic systems.

Rebates typically range from $150 to $1,500, although the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's Residential and Commercial Photovoltaic Buydown Incentive Program offers a maximum of $5 per watt for photovoltaic systems manufactured inside the City of Los Angeles. The maximum payment for each site is $50,000 for residential and $1 million for commercial customers. In some cases, rebate programs can be combined with low or no-interest loans.

Many local governments implement tax policies to promote the use of renewables. Fifteen states automatically exempt certain renewable energy devices from local property taxes, while others provide local authorities the option of providing property tax exemptions. The DSIRE project has identified six states with local option provisions: Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia.

Among the most ambitious utility green pricing efforts to date is one in the state capital of Austin, Texas. Austin Energy kicked off the new millennium by inviting its 350,000 electricity customers to sign up for GreenChoice.

Under the GreenChoice program, residential and business customers may choose to apply the fuel charge portion of their electric bill, plus a small premium, to purchase clean renewable energy. Austin Energy will also match participants' subscriptions dollar-for-dollar. Only 10 months after officially launching its GreenChoice green pricing option, Austin Energy fully subscribed its initial 40 MW of wind and landfill gas generated electricity, and began distributing the renewable energy through its system this year. In total, more than 3,000 customers have signed up for the service. Unlike many other utility green pricing programs, business customers have committed to purchase a majority of the available power - nearly 85 percent.

Another state capital, Olympia, Washington, has established a solar pioneers program. At the beginning of 1999, Olympia received a $30,000 Solar Grant from the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives' Cities for Climate Protection Campaign, funded by the U.S. EPA. Olympia is using its grant to fund the installation of municipal solar photovoltaic systems, as well as to create a municipal buy-down for residential and commercial solar systems. The city's intention is to demonstrate that renewable energy technology can play a valuable role in the Pacific Northwest.

The Interstate Renewable Energy Council's Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE) project was established in 1995. The project is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Power Technologies and is managed by the North Carolina Solar Center.

----

More Power To You and California
Tribes Urge Federal Government to Cut Red Tape for New Power Plants on Tribal Lands

May 17
http://ens.lycos.com/e-wire/May01/17May0107.html

LOS ANGLES, CA, Grassroots watchdog group More Power To You, working with the Southern California Tribal Chairman's Association, is calling on the federal government and the Bush Administration to help Native American tribes move forward on plans to build new, small to mid-size power plants on tribal lands located in California.

While proposing this common-sense solution to the problem of too few power plants in California, More Power To You also pointed to the urgent need for President Bush to redress actions by the previous Administration that pose barriers to building critical new transmission lines from the east.

Power Plants on Tribal Lands Are a ``Win-Win''

``Sovereign tribal lands are not subject to state regulations, so all that needs to happen for Native Americans to build power plants on their own land is for the federal government to get out of the way,'' said More Power To You chairman and California small business owner Peter C. Foy. ``During his recent fact finding trip to California, Congressman Dan Burton, the chairman of the U.S. House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, assured me that Congress is looking at cutting federal red tape and streamlining regulations so such projects can move forward. We urge them to do so now, and also to assist tribes that want to build power plants to secure financial backing for these important projects.''

``All of the 19 tribes that make up the Southern California Tribal Chairman's Association are coming together to build power generators,'' said David Dehnert, attorney for SCTCA. ``As the tribes work together to bring electricity to reservations that don't currently have power, they will benefit tribal communities and all Californians.''

Foy noted that there are 103 reservations, comprising over 480,000 acres in California. He said that More Power To You's research indicates that many tribal lands are in sufficiently close proximity to transmission lines to make them viable locations for power plants.

``The reality is that while most of us recognize the need for more power plants here in California, building them near crowded neighborhoods is difficult,'' said Foy. ``Building new plants on tribal lands can be a win-win, long-term solution for both California power consumers and our Native American neighbors. The tribes will have a solid, long-term source of income that they control, while the people of California benefit from a greater supply of locally-produced energy.''

Foy said that while More Power To You applauds the federal government for its intention to put federally-owned mobile and back-up generation capabilities to work to ease the burden on California's power grid during peak times this summer, there is much more the federal government can do.

``We are pleased that the Bush Administration responded to our plea for assistance by agreeing to use federal generation capabilities,'' said Foy, noting that the concept was one of the short-term solutions raised by Californians in town hall-focus group meetings More Power To You organized in various parts of the state. ``We also agree with Vice President Cheney that more power plants and better transmission capabilities are needed soon, but we have discovered by listening to the people of California that the federal government can do more to help bring these plants and transmission capabilities online sooner.''

``Land Grab'' Impedes New Transmission Lines, Pipeline Capacity

In addition to clearing the way for Native American tribes to build plants, Foy said that the federal government must act now to ensure that new transmission lines and pipeline capacity for proposed new natural gas power plants in neighboring states become a reality.

``I spoke with Governor Jane Hull of Arizona, and she informed me that a new transmission crisis may impede our progress toward solutions for the current energy crisis unless the federal government addresses the huge land grab that took place in the waning days of the Clinton Administration,'' said Foy. ``At that time, the federal government locked up millions of acres in various parts of the West as national monuments.''

These actions by the Clinton Administration make it next to impossible to build new transmission lines or natural gas pipelines into California from the east.

``We urge the Interior Department to work to undo this shortsighted approach that, if not fixed, has the very real potential of extending this power crisis far into the future,'' said Foy.

Foy indicated that More Power To You is currently investigating several other short- and long-term energy strategies that have been suggested to his group, and that more ideas will be announced in the coming weeks.

About More Power To You

``For too long, the people who pay the electric bills and pay the taxes in California have been shut out of the discussion about the State's energy crisis,'' said Foy. ``Through More Power To You, everyday homeowners and businesspeople are putting forth their own workable, creative ideas to make sure California has the power it needs this summer and beyond.''

The name of the group says it all: ``The people of California need more power, in terms of a stable and affordable energy supply, and they need more power in the process to make sure that California never again experiences this kind of energy chaos,'' said Foy.

More Power To You is a 501.c.4 non-profit organization, based in Woodland Hills, Calif. For more information, visit the Web site at www.mpty.org or call toll-free, 1-877-99POWER.

-------- energy

Carter Says Energy Crisis Not Bad

MAY 17,
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_package.html?FRONTID=ELECTION&PACKAGEID=bushenergy&STORYID=APIS7C1UKP00

WASHINGTON (AP) - Jimmy Carter said the nation's current energy problems are not as severe as the energy crisis he faced as president in the 1970s.

``No energy crisis exists now that equates in any way with those we faced in 1973 and 1979,'' Carter said Thursday in an article in The Washington Post. He noted that world energy supplies are adequate and stable, and ``automobiles aren't waiting in line at service stations''

Two major oil crises struck the U.S. economy in the 1970s - first in 1973 and then in the late 1970s, during Carter's presidency - as major oil exporters reacted to the Iran hostage crisis, causing gas lines and supply shortages. The Democratic president was defeated in 1980, partly because of fallout from the energy crisis.

Carter said the country should continue the policies of his administration, seeking a balance between conservation and new energy production.

He also renewed his opposition to Bush administration plans to drill in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In 1980, Carter signed a bill that protected the refuge's 1.5 million-acre coastal plain, where the oil is, while opening 95 percent of Alaska's coastal areas to oil exploration.

``Some officials are using misinformation and scare tactics to justify such environmental atrocities as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,'' Carter wrote. He added that drilling advocates ``are careful to conceal the facts that almost none of the electricity in energy-troubled California is generated from oil.''

----

DOE Silent On Energy Task Force Contacts

Reuters
Friday, May 11, 2001
http://washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11557-2001May10?language=printer

The Department of Energy has rejected a Freedom of Information Act request to identify interest groups that are helping shape Vice President Cheney's energy task force plan, an environmental group said yesterday.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) requested records identifying the members of the task force and all working groups reporting to the task force, along with other information, in a late April request to the Energy Department under the FOIA.

The environmental group is appealing the Energy Department's rejection, and a group advocating open government complained that the DOE overstepped its authority.

The DOE said those documents were "pre-decisional" -- preceding its final plan -- and therefore not subject to public disclosure. But attorneys for the Freedom of Information Service Center, part of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said the Energy Department may have overstepped its power in using that exemption.

"That exemption is primarily to protect the candid exchange of information," said Rebecca Daugherty, the director of the FOI Service Center. "But it doesn't exist to protect the identity of people influencing the decision-making."

"There's been a lot of talk about how industries have been influencing the task force plan but no information on who," said NRDC attorney Robert Perks. "We want to know exactly who is going to influence our energy plan."

The DOE's task force plan is expected out on May 17.

----

Bush National Energy Policy Expands Nuclear, Oil Drilling, Renewables

May 17, 2001
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/may2001/2001L-05-17-02.html

WASHINGTON, DC, The Bush administration's National Energy Policy Development Group headed by Vice President Dick Cheney issued a comprehensive plan today that puts environmental issues front and center.

The proposed policy would expand the role of nuclear power, open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration, limit toxic emissions from power plans and offer new tax incentives for the development of renewable energy.

President George W. Bush called the policy "a very optimistic look at America," after a presentation to the Cabinet Wednesday in Washington. "This isn't just a report that's going to gather dust," the President said, "this is an action plan."

The Bush Cabinet considers the new National Energy Policy. From left: EPA Administrator Christie Whitman, Education Secretary Rod Paige, Interior Secretary Gale Norton, Secretary of State Colin Powell, President George W. Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta (Photo courtesy the White House)

Two of the three basic principles on which the plan is based mention environmental concerns. The "comprehensive" and "long-term" policy will advance "new, environmentally friendly technologies to increase energy supplies and encourage cleaner, more efficient energy use."

"The Policy seeks to raise the living standards of the American people, recognizing that to do so our country must fully integrate its energy, environmental, and economic policies," the policy group says.

But there are few quick fixes promised. "Our energy crisis has been years in the making, and will take years to put fully behind us," the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPD) predicts.

"To meet projected demand over the next two decades, America must have in place between 1,300 and 1,900 new electric plants," the policy group estimates.

Natural gas will fuel many of the new power plants, and the policy group gives nuclear power, which today supplies 20 percent of America's electricity, "an expanding part in our energy future."

Against the urging of most environmental groups in the United States, the NEPD Group recommends authorization of exploration and, if resources are discovered, development of the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. "Congress should require the use of the best available technology and should require that activities will result in no significant adverse impact to the surrounding Environment," the group said.

Legislation should be passed to "use an estimated $1.2 billion of bid bonuses from the environmentally responsible leasing of ANWR for funding research into alternative and renewable energy resources, including wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass," the group recommends.

The generation of electricity from fossil fuels should be cleaned up, the group said. Their plan recommends "mandatory reduction targets" for emissions of three main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury.

Vice President Dick Cheney heads the National Energy Policy Development Group (Photo courtesy the White House)

The group says the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should work with Congress to propose legislation that would establish "a flexible, market based program to significantly reduce and cap emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury from electric power generators."

Reductions of these emissions should be phased in "over a reasonable period of time," the group said, comparing the plan to the successful acid rain reduction program established by the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act.

Under the plan, utilities would be able to make modifications to their plants without fear of new litigation. Financial incentives such as emissions trading credits would be established to help achieve the required reductions.

Such a program "with appropriate measures to address local concerns" would provide significant public health benefits even as we increase electricity supplies, the group said.

The group proposes the investment of $2 billion over 10 years to fund research in clean coal technologies, and supports a permanent extension of the existing research and development tax credit.

Plans to expand the production of energy from renewable sources such as biomass, wind, geothermal, and solar would include re-evaluation of access limitations to federal lands to site generating facilities.

The group recommends "appropriate funding of those renewable energy research and development programs that are performance based and are modeled as public-private partnerships."

New landfill methane projects would get a tax credit under the proposed policy, and ways would be found to reduce the delays in geothermal lease processing as part of the permitting review process.

The EPA administrator is advised to develop a new renewable energy partnership program to help companies more easily buy renewable energy, as well as receive recognition for the environmental benefits of their purchases.

A extensive public education program would promote consumer choice programs to "increase knowledge about the environmental benefits of purchasing renewable energy."

Tax credits for electricity produced using wind and biomass would be expanded.

Direct benefits for consumers include a temporary income tax credit available for the purchase of new hybrid or fuel-cell vehicles between 2002 and 2007, and a new 15 percent tax credit for residential solar energy property, up to a maximum credit of $2,000.

The EPA is advised to issue guidance to encourage the development of "well designed combined heat and power units," commonly called cogeneration units, that are highly efficient and have low emissions.

And the group recommends funding for research into "next-generation technology" including the use of hydrogen as a fuel and nuclear fusion.

The policy also expands the role of energy conservation and efficiency with an expansion of the government's Energy Star certification program and more money for weatherization upgrades to low income housing.

Cheney said, "Here we aim to continue a path of uninterrupted progress in many fields...New technologies are proving that we can save energy without sacrificing our standard of living. And we're going to encourage it in every way possible."

The NEPD Group recommends the passage of comprehensive electricity legislation that "promotes competition, protects consumers, enhances reliability, promotes renewable energy, improves efficiency, repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act, and reforms the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act."

Meanwhile, until energy supplies are more plentiful, President Bush said he would work with Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to ensure that no price gouging is allowed.

"You know, we can't overcome the fact that we haven't built a refinery in years and we should have. We can make sure that any entity will not illegally overcharge. And so I'm calling on the FTC to make sure that nobody in America gets illegally overcharged. And we're going to make sure FERC [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] will monitor electricity suppliers to make sure that they charge rates that are fair and reasonable." Bush said.

----

Bush Plan Draws Mixed Reaction From Energy Execs

Excite News
May 17, 2001
By Jonathan Landreth
http://news.excite.com/news/r/010517/20/politics-bush-energy-companies-dc

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush's energy plan found broad praise on Thursday from companies facing what he called "the most serious energy shortage" in decades, along with some criticism from oil and utility executives worried about government meddling in their industry.

The highly anticipated plan, which calls for an expansion of domestic supplies of gas, oil, and nuclear power and touts $10 billion in tax credits for conservation measures, was developed by a task force led by Vice President Dick Cheney, a former executive with oil services concern Halliburton Co.

But the plan did not win unconditional praise from an industry which stands to benefit from the measures.

Kenneth Woodcock, senior vice president of AES Corp., one of the world's biggest power suppliers, said the Bush plan was as unbalanced as a Clinton administration plan that tipped too far in favor of environmental concerns.

"This plan gets the government pushing too far on the supply side versus conservation and the environment, which isn't really the best path toward a balanced electricity and energy market," he said.

Gene Edwards, senior vice president of planning, business development, and risk management at independent refining company Valero Energy Corp., also voiced concerns about the government becoming too involved in the energy business.

"Government intervention only creates more uncertainty and companies don't know what to do about investing," said Edwards. "The industry will catch up and make gasoline as needed without government intervention."

THE REAL CRISIS

Three of the world's the largest oil companies -- Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell/Group and BP Plc -- said they would reserve judgement on specifics of the plan until they studied it more closely.

"This is an issue of national importance and one that demands a great deal of discussion and deliberation," Exxon Mobil said in a statement, adding that it "welcomed" the release of the plan.

Meanwhile, competing oil and gas producers said the plan offered relief from "the real energy crisis" of the 1990s, when energy prices fell so low that drilling budgets had to be cut.

"Today we're living on oil and natural gas discoveries made in the 1970s and '80s," said Robert Allison, Jr., Chairman and CEO of Anadarko Petroleum Corp., one of the largest independent exploration and production companies in the United States. "We're way behind the demand curve, and it's going to be hard to catch up."

"I applaud the administration for taking these steps to encourage more energy development in this country," Allison said, echoing comments from Archie W. Dunham, chief executive of the No. 4 U.S. oil company, Conoco Inc..

"We need to increase domestic supplies of natural gas and crude oil, remove barriers to improving the nation's energy infrastructure and make logical use of abundant coal and renewable resources," Dunham said. "We applaud the bold leadership of the Administration."

The 163-page report was unveiled during a speech to local business leaders in St. Paul, Minnesota, after Bush visited an innovative power plant.

FUNDAMENTAL IMBALANCE

"A fundamental imbalance between supply and demand defines our nation's energy crisis," said the report, which also includes a preface by Cheney that lays out a far-reaching, long-term strategy to use new technology to produce an integrated energy, environmental and economic policy.

"It is a sound and realistic plan that balances increased supply with more efficient use of energy, and traditional sources of energy with clean, renewable sources," said David Sokol, chief executive of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co..

"Without this plan, we will travel backward -- the crisis now faced in California will spread," Sokol said.

Senate Democrats have already attacked the report, which detailed challenges ahead and spelled out 105 recommendations, -- including several to be enacted by executive order. Critics were heard to say the Republican Party's abbreviation of GOP for "grand old party" now stands for "gas, oil and plutonium."

The plan is likely to set off a long debate since critics are already saying it offers no immediate relief for Americans paying record-high gasoline prices or Californians facing blackouts.

William McCormick, chairman and chief executive of CMS Energy Corp., which owns Michigan's largest utility and a host of pipeline in the Midwest, called the plan "a very good proposal" but admitted it would not have much impact on energy prices this summer.

"There are no quick fixes," he conceded.

Shares of Exxon fell 77 cents to $88.73 on the New York Stock Exchange, although other energy companies saw their stocks rise on Thursday. The Standard & Poor's index of refining companies .SPENRM) climbed almost 2 percent to 166.68 points; the S&P index of drillers .SPOILW) rose 3.22 percent to 4,681.55 points.

The S&P utilty index .SPU) was mostly steady, dropping 0.2 percent to 330.87 points.

-----

Excerpts From Overview of Task Force's Report on National Energy Policy

May 17, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/17/politics/17PTEX.html

Following are excerpts from the overview of the national energy policy being proposed by President Bush today, as provided by the White House:

America in the year 2001 faces the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargoes of the 1970's. The effects are already being felt nationwide. Many families face energy bills two or three times higher than they were a year ago. Millions of Americans find themselves dealing with rolling blackouts or brownouts; some employers must lay off workers or curtail production to absorb the rising cost of energy. Drivers across America are paying higher and higher gasoline prices.

Californians have felt these problems most acutely. California actually began the 1990's with a surplus of electricity generating capacity. Yet despite an economic boom, a rapidly growing population and a corresponding increase in energy needs, California did not add a single new major electric power plant during the 1990's. The result is a demand for electricity that greatly succeeds the amount available.

A fundamental imbalance between supply and demand defines our nation's energy crisis. As the chart illustrates, if energy production increases at the same rate as during the last decade our projected energy needs will far outstrip expected levels of production.

This imbalance, if allowed to continue, will inevitably undermine our economy, our standard of living and our national security. But it is not beyond our power to correct. . . .

The Challenge

America's energy challenge begins with our expanding economy, growing population and rising standard of living. Our prosperity and way of life are sustained by energy use. America has the technological know- how and environmentally sound 21st- century technologies needed to meet the principal energy challenges we face: promoting energy conservation, repairing and modernizing our energy infrastructure and increasing our energy supplies in ways that protect and improve the environment. Meeting each of these challenges is critical to expanding our economy, meeting the needs of a growing population and raising the American standard of living.

We are already working to meet the first challenge: using energy more wisely. Dramatic technological advances in energy efficiency have enabled us to make great strides in conservation, from the operation of farms and factories to the construction of buildings and automobiles. New technology allows us to go about our lives and work with less cost, less effort and less burden on the natural environment. While such advances cannot alone solve America's energy problems, they can and will continue to play an important role in our energy future.

The second challenge is to repair and expand our energy infrastructure. Our current, outdated network of electric generators, transmission lines, pipelines and refineries that convert raw materials into usable fuel has been allowed to deteriorate. Oil pipelines and refining capacity are in need of repair and expansion. Not a single major oil refinery has been built in the United States in nearly a generation, causing the kind of bottlenecks that lead to sudden spikes in the price of gasoline.

Natural gas distribution, likewise, is hindered by an aging and inadequate network of pipelines. To match supply and demand will require some 38,000 miles of new gas pipelines, along with 255,000 miles of distribution lines. Similarly, an antiquated and inadequate transmission grid prevents us from routing electricity over long distances and thereby avoiding regional blackouts, such as California's.

Increasing energy supplies while protecting the environment is the third challenge. Even with successful conservation efforts, America will need more energy.

Renewable and alternative fuels offer hope for America's energy future. But they supply only a small fraction of present energy needs. The day they fulfill the bulk of our needs is still years away. Until that day comes, we must continue meeting the nation's energy requirements by the means available to us.

Estimates indicate that over the next 20 years, U.S. oil consumption will increase by 33 percent, natural gas consumption by well over 50 percent and demand for electricity will rise by 45 percent. If America's energy production grows at the same rate as it did in the 1990's, we will face an ever-increasing gap.

Increases on this scale will require preparation and action today. Yet America has not been bringing on line the necessary supplies and infrastructure.

Extraordinary advances in technology have transformed energy exploration and production. Yet we produce 39 percent less oil today than we did in 1970, leaving us ever more reliant on foreign suppliers. On our present course, America 20 years from now will import nearly two of every three barrels of oil, a condition of increased dependency on foreign powers that do not always have America's interests at heart. Our increasing demand for natural gas, one of the cleanest forms of energy, far exceeds the current rate of production. We should reconsider any regulatory restrictions that do not take technological advances into account.

We have a similar opportunity to increase our supplies of electricity. To meet projected demand over the next to decades, America must have in place between 1,300 and 1,900 new electric plants. Much of this new generation will be fueled by natural gas. However, existing and new technologies offer us the opportunity to expand nuclear generation as well. Nuclear power today accounts for 20 percent of our country's electricity. This power source, which causes no greenhouse gas emissions, can play an expanding part in our energy future. The recommendations of this report address the energy challenges facing America. Taken together, they offer the thorough and responsible energy plan our nation has long needed.

Components

The national energy policy we propose follows three basic principles:

¶The policy is a long-term, comprehensive strategy. Our energy crisis has been years in the making and will take years to put fully behind us.

¶The policy will advance new, environmentally friendly technologies to increase energy supplies and encourage cleaner, more efficient energy use.

¶The policy seeks to raise the living standards of the American people, recognizing that to do so our country must fully integrate its energy, environmental, and economic policies.

Applying these principles, we urge action to meet five specific national goals. America must modernize conservation, modernize our energy infrastructure, increase energy supplies, accelerate the protection and improvement of the environment, and increase our nation's energy security.

Modernize Conservation

Americans share the goal of energy conservation. The best way of meeting this goal is to increase energy efficiency by applying new technology - raising productivity, reducing waste and trimming costs. In addition, it holds out great hope for improving the quality of the environment. American families, communities and businesses all depend upon reliable and affordable energy services for their well being and safety. From transportation to communication, from air conditioning to lighting, energy is critical to nearly everything we do in life and work. Public policy can and should encourage energy conservation.

Over the past three decades, America has made impressive gains in energy efficiency. Today's automobiles, for example, use about 60 percent of the gasoline they did in 1972, while new refrigerators require just one-third the electricity they did 30 years ago. As a result, since 1973, the U.S. economy has grown by 126 percent, while energy use has increased by only 30 percent. In the 1990's alone, manufacturing output expanded by 41 percent, while industrial electricity consumption grew by only 11 percent. We must build on this progress and strengthen America's commitment to energy efficiency and conservation. . . .

Modernize Our

Energy Infrastructure

The energy we use passes through a vast nationwide network of generating facilities, transmission lines, pipelines and refineries that converts raw resources into usable fuel and power. That system is deteriorating, and is now strained to capacity.

One reason for this is government regulation, often excessive and redundant. Regulation is needed in such a complex field, but it has become overly burdensome. Regulatory hurdles, delays in issuing permits and economic uncertainty are limiting investment in new facilities, making our energy markets more vulnerable to transmission bottlenecks, price spikes and supply disruptions. America needs more environmentally sound energy projects to connect supply sources to growing markets and to deliver energy to homes and business.

To reduce the incidence of electricity blackouts, we must greatly enhance our ability to transmit electric power between geographic regions, that is, sending power to where it is needed from where it is produced. . . .

Increase Energy Supplies

A primary goal of the national energy policy is to add supply from diverse sources. This means domestic oil, gas and coal. It also means hydropower and nuclear power. And it means making greater use of non- hydro renewable sources now available.

One aspect of the present crisis is an increased dependence, not only on foreign oil, but on a narrow range of energy options. For example, about 90 percent of all new electricity plants currently under construction will be fueled by natural gas. While natural gas has many advantages, an over-reliance on any one fuel source leaves consumers vulnerable to price spikes and supply disruptions. There are several other fuel sources available that can help meet our needs.

Currently, the U.S. has enough coal to last for another 250 years. Yet very few coal-powered electric plants are now under construction.

Nuclear power plants serve millions of American homes and businesses, have a dependable record for safety and efficiency and discharge no greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. As noted earlier, these facilities currently generate 20 percent of all electricity in America, and more than 40 percent of electricity generated in 10 states in the Northeast, South and Midwest. Other nations, such as Japan and France, generate a much higher percentage of their electricity from nuclear power. Yet the number of nuclear plants in America is actually projected to decline in coming years, as old plants close and none are built to replace them.

----

Energy plan puts focus on future

May 17, 2001
By Bill Sammon and Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010517-1313520.htm

President Bush today will announce an ambitious 105-point program to solve the nation´s burgeoning energy crisis, including a presidential order to strip away regulatory red tape that delays power projects.

The plan calls for new oil drilling on federal lands, new nuclear plants and $10 billion in tax incentives for Americans to save energy, according to a senior administration official.

The proposal, in which Mr. Bush warns of "the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargo of the 1970s," also recommends spending $2 billion over 10 years to pay for clean-coal technology.

"This is the first comprehensive energy policy probably ever, certainly in a long time," Mr. Bush said yesterday after a meeting with his Cabinet. "It provides over 100 proposals to diversify and increase the supply of energy, innovative proposals to encourage conservation and ways to make sure that we get energy from producer to consumer."

In a speech today in Minnesota, Mr. Bush will detail the 105 recommendations -- including 35 to help increase energy supply and modernize antiquated infrastructure; 42 to increase conservation, environmental protection and use of alternative fuels; and others to address international initiatives to increase energy resources.

"A fundamental imbalance between supply and demand defines our nation´s energy crisis," says the report, the overview of which was released last night by the White House. "This imbalance, if allowed to continue, will inevitably undermine our economy, our standard of living, and our national security."

The proffered solutions to the energy crisis run the gamut of old and new solutions, from exploiting the nation´s 250-year supply of coal to capturing methane gas emitted by landfills to generate electricity.

"America must have an energy policy that plans for the future, but meets the needs of today," the president says in the 163-page National Energy Policy.

"I believe we can develop our natural resources and protect our environment." Among the plan´s recommendations:

* Provide $4 billion in credits for purchases of "hybrid" electric-gasoline vehicles or cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells.

* Offer homeowners a $2,000 tax credit to install solar electricity or hot water systems.

* Open a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas exploration. The plan would earmark $1.2 billion in lease payments from the land to fund research in renewable energy sources.

* Provide $1.5 billion in tax incentives to facilitate the sale of nuclear power plants.

* Grant the federal government "eminent domain" authority to obtain right-of-way for electricity transmission lines.

* Order the Transportation Department to review fuel economy standards for vehicles to see whether they can be tightened.

Democrats are geared up to attack the plan, which they say ignores the environment for a policy that Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, has said is nothing more than "drill, drill, drill."

"We´re concerned about the lack of balance in the approach that they appear to be adopting, one which is based almost exclusively on production," said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle.

"And we´re concerned, of course, about the fact that they appear not to find any value in short-term solutions," he said.

The president´s policy is long on recommendations and short on unilateral actions. Of the 105 items, 73 are directives to federal agencies, 20 are recommended actions for Congress and 12 can be implemented by Mr. Bush.

One key to easing energy shortages, the report says, is to upgrade the nation´s transmission lines, substations and transformers to aid in "energy swapping" between regions.

"We´ve also got to recognize our infrastructure is old and stale, and so we´ve got innovative approaches to be able to move product from one part of the country to another, or natural gas, for example, from outside our borders to inside our borders," Mr. Bush said.

The plan also calls for federal agencies to strip away bureaucratic hurdles that delay permits for energy-related projects and "make our energy markets more vulnerable to transmission bottlenecks, price spikes and supply disruptions."

The fast-track process has already worked in California, where four new power plants quickly approved and built will come on line this summer, a senior administration official said.

The report also says Mr. Bush will sign an executive order this week that directs all agencies to include in any regulatory action that could "significantly and adversely affect energy supplies" a detailed statement on the rules´ impact.

One of the most politically daring aspects of the Bush energy plan is the call for more nuclear energy. Although this source of power creates virtually no harmful emissions, it has been demonized by liberals for decades.

"This administration understands it´s an important part of our energy source," the senior Bush official said.

Also among the recommendations is opening 8 percent of Alaska´s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. That is equal to building an airport one-fifth the size of Dulles in an expanse the size of South Carolina, said Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer.

Mr. Bush will travel to Minnesota and Iowa today to announce his plan, then tour a hydroelectric power plant in Pennsylvania tomorrow.

The energy plan contains so many hot-button issues for Democrats that it is expected to become a major test of the president´s political skills. He will try to frame the plan as a solution to the nation´s energy woes, while the Democrats will try to frame it as an environmental outrage.

Democrats also complain that it would not do enough in the short term to ease soaring gasoline prices. They have argued for government price controls on soaring electricity rates in California and perhaps a reduction in the federal gasoline tax, which President Clinton raised in 1993 with the help of a tie-breaking Senate vote by Vice President Al Gore.

While Democrats have demanded a short-term solution aimed at easing gas prices for Americans mapping out summer vacations, none has acknowledged the eight-year tenure of a Democratic president who vehemently opposed oil exploration or new power plants.

The chief architect of the energy plan, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, went to Capitol Hill yesterday to brief Republican leaders, who were unanimous in their support of the proposal, which they said balances production and conservation.

"The government needs to get focused on what we can do to turn the lights back on," said House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Texas Republican.

Majority Leader Trent Lott said the Senate will move quickly on the recommendations and hopes to have the bill completed and on the president´s desk by July 4.

The leaders said there will be some early relief for consumers, but they warned that the proposal is not a quick fix that will lower prices overnight.

"We´re not going to try and tax-credit ourselves out of this issue," House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said, referring to the House Democrat energy plan released Tuesday.

"There is no magic wand to solve the problem tomorrow."

Republicans say they inherited the energy crisis from the Clinton administration and are now trying to address it.

"Over the last eight years this problem has been ignored, so now we have a comprehensive package to try and stabilize it," said Rep. J.C. Watts, Oklahoma Republican.

"I think this was a setup for Al Gore. He wanted $3-a-gallon gasoline so he could take people´s cars away," said House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican.

Mr. Bush made clear yesterday that he has no desire to impose price controls on electricity or gasoline, as some Democrats have suggested.

"Price controls do not increase supply," he said, "nor do they affect demand."

* Audrey Hudson contributed to this article.

--------

Democrats Denounce Energy Plan

New York Times
May 17, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Energy-Congress.html

WASHINGTON (AP)-- President Bush's energy report was still being distributed Thursday when Democrats in Congress rushed out to denounce it. Even a few Republicans expressed concern that some parts will have tough going in Congress.

While the president was in Minnesota and Iowa touting the plan, Democrats were in a basement room of the U.S. Capitol, where they organized a call-in operation from people in California upset about power blackouts and high electricity and gasoline prices.

``It's the wrong choice for America,'' House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri said, dismissing the Bush plan as too much oil, gas, and nuclear energy and not much else.

``It ducks tough issues,'' such as global warming and ``basically ignores conservation'' said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.

Republicans embraced the plan, calling it balanced and long overdue.

``This is the first national energy plan in a generation. It is comprehensive. It is balanced. And it delivers us to energy stability and security,'' said Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, whose Energy and Natural Resources Committee will craft energy legislation.

Republican leaders in both the House and Senate promised to move quickly to turn the Bush proposals into legislation. The first round of hearings on the plan are schedule for next week.

Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, the No. 3 leader in the House, said he expects legislation to pass the House before the August recess. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., has set a similar schedule.

While scores of recommendations in the Bush task force report require only agency and White House action, about a fifth need legislation, including a number of tax breaks both for energy production and conservation.

A few of the proposals, such as the call to begin drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, could bring the whole energy debate grinding to a halt in the Senate, where several Democrats have vowed to filibuster any bill containing such a provision.

There are other flashpoints as well.

A Bush proposal to give the federal government the right to take property for power lines has raised concern from some western GOP lawmakers and governors, as well as property rights advocates.

``It's a work in progress,'' House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said, adding that the ``case still has to be made'' for some parts of the Bush proposals, such as Arctic refuge development.

Nevertheless, Hastert said the Bush plan ``strikes the right balance.''

Overriding the energy debate in Congress will be the twin issues of energy production vs. conservation, and long-term vs. short-term actions.

``Their plan offers no solution'' to currently soaring electricity costs in the West and gasoline price spikes almost everywhere, said Daschle of the Republican proposals, echoing the criticism from scores of Democrats. Nor, they say, does it address development of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.

Democrats have offered their own energy package, which includes broader incentives and spending for conservation and efficiency research and for renewable energy programs.

The Democrats also are pushing legislation that would require federal energy regulators to impose temporary price caps on wholesale electricity sales in the West, where they say the power markets are dominated by a handful of power producers and marketers.

Bush has repeatedly rejected such market intervention, saying it would stifle investment in power production.

Hoping to dampen criticism, Republicans say their energy bill may go beyond what Bush has proposed in areas of renewables and efficiency, including more money for these programs than Bush proposed in February. Bush's budget cuts these programs by about one-third with no mention in the energy report that more money will be proposed.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, noting Bush's trip Thursday to a renewable energy research facility in Iowa, said ``a photo op and a few nice words do not constitute a renewable energy policy.''

``America needs a balanced, comprehensive approach. ... The president's plan does that,'' countered House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas.

Recommendations of Energy Task Force
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Energy-Details.html

----

Proposal Is Latest U.S. Reaction to Energy Concerns That Wax and Wane

May 17, 2001
By ROBIN TONER
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/17/politics/17ENER.html?searchpv=nytToday

WASHINGTON, May 16 - Gov. Bob Wise of West Virginia was in a bullish mood when he met with his state's leading coal-industry officials last week. Once again, he said, an administration has declared an energy crisis and concluded that coal, the domestic workhorse of fossil fuels, is a major part of the solution. "We're back," he said.

But there was a wariness between the lines of Mr. Wise's message, and more than than a little sense of déjà vu.

"It seems to be running in a 20- year cycle: The country vows, by golly, we're going to do something about energy," Mr. Wise, a Democrat, told the group. "But then memories get short," he added. "The question is whether we will truly be back in a sustained way."

The Bush administration produced its energy plan tonight, declaring that "America in the year 2001 faces the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargoes of the 1970's." But many veterans of the past energy wars share a guarded view of such plans. The nation, they suggest, may be better at declaring energy crises than sticking with policies to fight them.

James R. Schlesinger, secretary of energy from 1977 to 1979, when the issue dominated and arguably consumed the Carter administration, said somewhat ruefully, "It's easier to make plans than to get them accepted."

In fact, there has been no shortage of energy proposals over the years: for a big investment in synthetic fuels, for vast new efforts in energy efficiency, for major expansions of coal use, for the creation of new agencies and the regulation - and deregulation - of oil and natural gas. Some endured, some lost support when the price of oil dropped, some did not survive the changes of administrations and philosophies.

As expected, the Bush administration's energy plan calls for added supply from domestic oil, gas and coal but also calls for government to "streamline the licensing of nuclear power plants." It also declares that "our energy crisis has been years in the making, and will take years to put fully behind us."

In recent days, many energy veterans have said the debate seems very familiar.

Jody Powell, press secretary for President Jimmy Carter, said: "One would think now, after all these many years, starting in '72, '73, that we might have learned this is a recurring problem that we probably ought to think about dealing with on a longer-term, more thoughtful basis. We've had two oil shocks, a third one of unknown dimensions on the horizon. And we also went to war about this."

But Walter Rosenbaum, an expert on energy at the University of Florida, suggested that the policy zigzags of the last 30 years should not be surprising.

"Short of a war, this has probably been the most difficult kind of planning," said Mr. Rosenbaum, a professor of political science, "because it requires us to make sacrifices that hit the pocketbook directly. And it's hard for politicians because those are the things that people remember."

Both in the 1970's and today, the energy debate raises some of the most complicated and politically charged trade-offs: conservation vs. production; environment vs. energy; government intervention vs. market forces.

In the 1970's, beginning with the Arab oil embargo of 1973, the energy crisis seemed an enduring feature of American life. It led to elaborate regulatory structures, an array of new government agencies, (first the Federal Energy Administration and the Energy Research and Development Agency, then the cabinet-level Department of Energy) and the first of many vows to end the nation's dependence on foreign oil.

When President Richard M. Nixon announced Project Independence in 1973, he compared it to the Manhattan Project and the Apollo program, and promised, "By the end of this decade, we will have developed the potential to meet our own energy needs without depending upon any foreign energy sources." (The nation's dependence on foreign oil was greater by 1980 and greater still by 2000.)

But it was Mr. Carter who essentially staked his presidency on what he called, just a few months after taking office in a cold winter during a natural gas crisis, "the moral equivalent of war."

It was a war fraught with symbolism: solar panels on the White House roof (eventually removed during the Reagan administration), sweaters on the president, urgent pleas to the nation to set winter thermostats at no more than 65.

The war was also waged with huge new investments. Mr. Rosenbaum said that between 1974 and 1981, federal support for all forms of energy research and development increased 475 percent.

Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, noted that the Carter years saw a move toward rolling back a "Rube Goldberg system of price controls" for oil and natural gas, overcoming intense political opposition and "the great skepticism about the ability of markets to actually work."

In those years there was also a heavy emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency, with measures like tax credits for home insulation and energy efficiency standards for home appliances.

David Nemtzow, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, an advocacy group, said that one of the most enduring elements of the Carter era was the push toward conservation and efficiency. The fuel economy standards were passed just before Mr. Carter took office but were put into effect in his tenure and save more than three million barrels of oil a day, Mr. Nemtzow said. The appliance standards were haggled over for years but eventually took hold.

"If you buy a full-size refrigerator today," Mr. Nemtzow said, "it will use no more than 40 percent of the electricity that a full-size refrigerator did in the 70's."

As time passed, and the price of oil dropped, the public's zeal for conservation eased; witness the popularity of less efficient sports utility vehicles and small trucks. But the overall trend toward energy efficiency remained, Mr. Yergin said.

Other energy initiatives from the Carter years, though, proved to be dead ends. One was the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, intended to pump billions into developing new ways of producing fuels, like coal liquefaction and gasification. An area outside Morgantown, W.Va., was slated to get a $1.4 billion plant designed to produce a clean-burning liquid from high-sulfur coal.

But after President Ronald Reagan came in, and the price of oil began to drop, the Synthetic Fuels Corporation proved a tempting target. It was abolished in 1985; the site where the synfuel plant was supposed to be built is now being developed as an industrial park.

It was emblematic of the sharp shift between the Carter and Reagan philosophies. Mr. Reagan preached the virtues of a free market and campaigned for the abolition of the Energy Department. Financing for energy research and development was cut substantially, and fuel economy standards were relaxed. Meanwhile, world oil prices were falling. The energy crisis receded for a while, although it was rediscovered in the first Bush administration around the time of the Persian Gulf war.

Federal policy on coal has been particularly inconsistent over the years; power plants were discouraged from burning coal for environmental reasons and encouraged to burn it for energy reasons. The Bush plan released tonight may be starting another cycle.

This policy roller coaster is hard for a state like West Virginia, which has far too much experience with the boom-bust cycle of coal. Governor Wise says he is setting up his own task force to see how his state can create a sustainable boom.

In the meantime, the governor said, "I want this country to recognize that you can't turn energy off and on like a spigot."

James Watt Sees Vindication

DENVER, May 16 (AP) - James G. Watt, interior secretary under President Reagan, said in an interview published today that the Bush administration's focus on drilling to solve energy problems was just what he suggested 20 years ago.

Mr. Watt called for tapping energy on public land, and in recent weeks Vice President Dick Cheney has said production should take precedence over conservation.

"Twenty years later, it sounds like they've just dusted off the old work," Mr. Watt said in an interview with The Denver Post.

--------

PSR Statement on Bush Energy Plan

U.S. Newswire
17 May
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/0517-142.html

Statement of Physicians for Social Responsibility Environment and Health Program Director Susan T. West To: National Desk Contact: Tarek Rizk of Physicians for Social Responsibility, 202-667-4260, ext. 215

WASHINGTON, May 17, /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following is a statement by Physicians for Social Responsibility Environment and Health Program Director Susan T. West, MPH:

In the energy plan released this week, the Bush Administration has failed in its duty to protect the American people. The plan represents a significant threat to the nation's public health. For example, power plant pollution shortens the lives and threatens the health of thousands of Americans. Instead of dealing with this health crisis, the Bush energy plan would increase the number of plants at an astronomical rate. The plan endorses a myriad of policies and practices that increase health risks.

The Bush energy plan not only ignores the need to restrict carbon dioxide emissions, it takes steps which will essentially increase those emissions over the next two decades. The plan supports the construction of 1,300 to 1,900 new power plants over that period. That comes out to nearly one power plant a week until 2021. These plants are our greatest emission-related health threat. They contribute to ground-level ozone, smog, acid rain, climate change, deadly particulate matter and birth defect-causing mercury.

America's fossil fuel habit pumps out 25 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. These emissions are the main culprit behind our changing climate, which can lead to increases in extreme weather events, heat waves and vector-borne diseases like the deadly West Nile Virus. A smart energy policy would address this growing US and world health problem; the Bush energy policy is silent on restricting CO2 emissions.

The Bush energy plan puts a great deal of faith into unreliable and dangerous strategies. One such strategy is nuclear power. While nuclear plants don't emit traditional air pollutants, they do raise the level of other, much more catastrophic health threats. An accident at a nuclear plant could injure or kill thousands of people. The Bush plan encourages increased reliance on nuclear power and allows for the development of new technologies, including the use of weapons-grade plutonium for nuclear reactors.

Another questionable practice endorsed in the Bush plan is the use of so-called 'clean coal' technology. The reality is that this 'clean coal' still emits seven times the pollution of a natural gas plant working under similar conditions. Burning clean coal still releases dangerous toxins which endanger the health of all populations exposed. The Bush energy plan also calls for tax incentives to encourage biomass energy production which could lead to increases in municipal waste incineration, thereby significantly adding harmful dioxin into our communities.

The Bush energy plan does not demonstrate any concern about public health or our existing legislation to protect the American people. The Bush plan would review regulatory action against polluting utilities undermining the Clean Air Act. Our nation has better options: efficiency, alternative sources and conservation is the best medicine for our energy needs. A decreased reliance on fossil fuels and a timely transition to sustainable energy sources, in concert with more comprehensive efficiency plans, will lead to improved overall public health.

The plan protects only the health of the oil, coal, and electricity industries, while leaving our nation dangerously exposed to health hazards. The health of America depends on a progressive and sustainable approach.

--------

Bush tackles energy 'crisis'
Democrats say plan caters to big oil companies

H. Josef Hebert
Associated Press
Thursday, May 17, 2001
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/epaper/editions/thursday/news_b340b114e47810d21002.html

Washington --- President Bush unveiled a plan today to boost supplies of oil, gas and nuclear energy, promising to lift government barriers to energy production while still protecting the environment.

The energy blueprint, crafted by a Cabinet-level task force, cites a ''fundamental imbalance between supply and demand'' that will take time to correct. It proposes little to address this summer's soaring gasoline prices or Western electricity shortages.

It calls the country's energy shortages the worst since the 1970s oil embargoes that featured long gas lines and energy rationing. Still, today's supplies of oil and gas --- as well as electricity across most of the country --- are adequate, industry experts say.

The Bush energy report includes several proposals sure to trigger sharp debate in Congress, including drilling for oil in an Arctic wildlife refuge and possibly reviving nuclear fuel reprocessing, which was abandoned in the 1970s as a nuclear proliferation threat.

The 163-page ''action plan'' --- as White House officials have called it --- will become pivotal in the writing of energy legislation in Congress later this year.

Initial Republican reaction was positive. Democrats said while there are ''common grounds,'' the president's emphasis on production as opposed to conservation and lack of short-term measures are of serious concern.

''It is a work in progress,'' said House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). He said ''the case has to be made'' for some provisions such as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said he hoped to have energy legislation up for a Senate vote this summer, but also acknowledged some of it ''will be hotly debated.''

Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe called the Bush plan a product of an administration ''filled top to bottom with people from the oil industry.''

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who headed the task force that produced the plan, are former Texas oil industry executives. Energy companies also were heavy contributors to the former Texas governor's presidential campaign.

''George Bush's message to California from day one has been, ''Drop dead','' McAuliffe said on ABC's ''Good Morning America.''

Bush, who was kicking off a campaign to sell his energy proposals today with speeches in Minnesota and Iowa, has frequently said there is no ''quick fix'' to the country's energy problems, including the power shortages in California.

''Our energy crisis has been years in the making and will take years to put fully behind us,'' the task force report declares.

It provides 105 recommendations, from reviewing all public lands to determine whether they should be open to energy development to streamlining nuclear power plants and re-examining whether vehicle fuel economy requirements should be strengthened.

Twenty of the recommendations would require congressional action and 42 would ''help increase conservation, environmental protection and use of alternative fuels,'' the White House said. Another 35 recommendations are directed at increasing supplies and improving energy infrastructure.

The report includes more than $10 billion worth of tax credits over 10 years for conservation and energy development, but about half those credits either already exist or had previously been proposed in the president's budget in February. The largest credit, $4 billion, would be aimed at spurring sales of hybrid gas-electric cars, which are not expected to be widely available for several years, although a few are in showrooms.

The president's plan calls for easing regulatory barriers to building nuclear power plants, expanding oil and gas development, refinery construction and improving the nation's inadequate and sometimes precarious electricity grid.

Among the report's most controversial recommendations is to lift the ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Democrats have vowed to block any legislation freeing the refuge to development.

Another proposal to allow the federal government to take private land for power lines is expected to meet sharp opposition from property rights advocates.

The report also recommends that nuclear reprocessing be given another look as part of a package of proposals to promote commercial nuclear power and reduce the amount of reactor waste to be stored.

Reprocessing, in which plutonium is chemically salvaged from used reactor fuel to be used again in a reactor, was abandoned in the 1970s in the United States because of nuclear proliferation concerns, although it is still embraced in Japan and Europe.

Among other key recommendations in the report:

(salinity) An executive order to require federal agencies to consider the impact on energy supplies whenever issuing a regulation.

(salinity) Streamline regulatory approval for energy facilities, including power plants, hydroelectric dams, refineries and transmission lines and natural gas pipelines.

(salinity) Provide or extend tax credits for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines, organic waste energy plants, or methane landfills that produce energy as well as for purchase of solar panels.

(salinity) Expedite government approval of a pipeline to carry natural gas from Alaska's North Slope, if such a permit is requested.

(salinity) Provide $2 billion over 10 years for research into clean coal technology, to assure the future of coal as a major energy source.

After a Cabinet meeting Wednesday to brief his senior aides on Cheney's report, Bush held up the 163-page document and pledged to press agency heads and members of Congress to enact policies he has placed near the center of his domestic agenda.

"This isn't just a report that's going to gather dust," said Bush. "This is an action plan because this is an action administration."

Cheney's report casts the nation's current energy situation as dire.

"America in the year 2001 faces the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargoes of the 1970s," the report declares, going on to detail rising gasoline and heating prices and rolling electricity blackouts on the West Coast as early signs of a deepening problem Bush blamed on his predecessors.

"It's a direct assessment of neglect," Bush said.

"But this great nation of ours, because of our technology, our attitude, our adherence to free enterprise, our willingness to conserve, we're going to solve this problem," said the president. "This is a country that is going to show the rest of the world how to deal wisely with energy."

The president also is directing the Treasury Department to craft $8.5 billion worth of tax credits --- half of them new, the rest extensions of existing policy --- for:

(salinity) People who buy hybrid automobiles capable of running on gasoline or electricity.

(salinity) People who put photovoltaic solar cells on their roofs.

(salinity) Factories that use waste heat to generate electricity.

A central feature of the Bush policy is to try to invigorate the nuclear power industry, which has not produced a new generating plant in more than two decades.

Bush is proposing $1.5 billion in tax credits to assist companies that purchase existing nuclear power plants.

He also is directing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review its policy toward the development and deployment of nuclear waste processing technologies in ways that could lead to the construction of plutonium-fueled power plants.

While such plants are widely used throughout Britain, Japan and France, the technology has been prohibited in the United States, in large part because of the security threat posed by plutonium, the key ingredient in nuclear weapons.

The mere prospect of using so-called reprocessing technology is a sensitive matter in security and environmental circles, where the proposal raised immediate concerns.

"I find that staggeringly terrifying," said Carl Pope, president of the Sierra Club. "Every power plant becomes a potential terrorist target."

Environmentalists also are expected to oppose a proposal that the Environmental Protection Agency undertake a review aimed at creating what the administration official called "a flexible, market-based program" for dealing with emissions of sulfur dioxide, mercury and nitrogen oxide from coal-fired power plants.

To sell his plan, Bush must navigate among hundreds of issue groups, governors and local officials with competing concerns.

Some Republicans demanded quick fixes not found in the report, fearing the public would blame them in 2002 congressional elections if energy prices soar.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said he hoped to get the energy package approved and ready for Bush's signature by July 4. He conceded, however, that some recommendations, such as expanded drilling on federal land and taking private land for power lines, "will be hotly debated" by Congress.

> ON THE WEB:
Energy Information Administration: www.eia.doe.gov
North American Electric Reliability Council: www.nerc.com

--------

BUSH ENERGY PLAN - POLICY OR PAYBACK?
(BBC TRANSCRIPT)

BBC Newsnight
Thursday, May 17, 2001
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=80&row=1

[JIMI HENDRIX PLAYS, 'STAR-SPANGLED BANNER.']

VOICE OF JIM HIGHTOWER, FORMER TEXAS STATE AGRICULTURE COMMISSIONER "Any fantasy that a CEO has can come true if you put enough money into Bush's political ambitions."

LIST OF BIGGEST ENERGY INDUSTRY DONORS TO REPUBLICAN PARTY DURING BUSH CAMPAIGN:

ENRON $1,800,000 EXXON $1,200,000 KOCH INDUSTRIES $970,000 SOUTHERN $900,000 BP AMOCO $800,000 LEHMAN BROTHERS $808,000 EL PASO ENERGY $787,000 CHEVRON OIL CORP 780,000 RELIANT ENERGY $642,000 TEXAS UTILITIES TXU $635,000

VOICE OF LaNell ANDERSON, TEXAN BUCKET BRIGADE "Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the that the lobbyists' money has found its mark"

[Bush energy policy line at top...] From the moment GB announced he was running for President 50 MILLION dollars came in from Texas-based energy companies but they got a payback of 5 billion dollars - half delivered since GB was President and half while he was still Governor of Texas which is where it all begins.

[GREG PALAST IN AN AIRPLANE OVER HOUSTON, TEXAS] Welcome to Toxic Texas - a 15 mile wide forest of smoke stacks on the edge of Houston. A place famous for pumping out pollution, profits and the political donations which put George Bush into the White House. Let's go down and take a look.

PALAST: When it comes to pollution, Texas is champ the No 1 state in emissions of greenhouse gases and toxic chemicals

[FLARING SMOKE stack -] We watched this mile long cloud of black smoke - and flames 200 ft high -- erupting out of a Houston cracking plant -- they are burning off a ruined batch of ethylene and other toxic chemicals after a hydrogen line snapped.

This sort of accident is common this side of Houston where poisonous smoke rains on local neighbourhoods. And its not just VISIBLE emissions locals have to worry about.

LaNell Anderson lived in the shadow of the Houston smoke stacks - her mother and father died too young - bone cancer and lung disease - and LaNell became suspicious.

She started taking air samples after an ethylene leak caused the local high school running team to collapse on the track.

Lab analysis of her bucket samples has found carcinogens in the air way above legal limits.

LaNell, PULLING AIR SAMPLE BAG FROM BUCKET: 'THIS IS AN Excellent sample' ....

She has since found that local cancer cases are twice the normal rate. She took us on a toxic tour.

[LANELL INTERVIEW] GP "What are you doing?" LA "I'm smelling something - do you smell it" GP Its disgusting but what is it we're smelling? LA Its Hydrogen Sulphide because its that bad eggs smell GP Are they supposed to be releasing Hydrogen Sulphide LA No they're not supposed to be releasing anything these are outside chemical impacts that's not supposed to happen its supposed to stop at that fenceline.

So how do the polluters get away with it?

LANELL Vending machine governance is where the lobbyists put the money in and out comes lax regulation.

LA Its just an ongoing war with the ..they do not care what their neighbours think they do not care if their neighbours die.

This is the home of America's petrochemical industry - the nation's biggest refinery, Exxon's plant in Baytown.

LANELL Exxon are on my radar - they're the largest emitter in Harris county and they have the worst attitude of any corporation I've ever witnessed...

PALAST: Exxon wouldn't accept that and neither would George Bush - as Texas Governor Bush QUIETLY set up a committee led by Exxon, with other big oil and chemical companies to advise him what to do about the state's deadly air pollution.

SHOT OF ACTUAL LETTER FROM EXXON TO GOVERNOR GEORGE W BUSH

Regulators wanted compulsory cuts in emissions of up to 50%. This "secret" committee instead proposed making the cuts ... voluntary. Bush steered the polluters plan through the State legislature.

Texas anti-corruption law makes it illegal to donate money to Bush as Governor while such legislation is under consideration. But that month, Bush declared for President - making the150,000 dollars donated by committee members and their representatives completely legal.

The bill passed and pollution did go down - by 3% ... Saving the companies hundreds of millions of dollars compared to the COMPULSORY cut.

And there's been a bonus for chemical industry donors since Bush became President. Newsnight learned he's quietly RESTRICTING public access to estimates of the number of people who will burn or die in case of a catastrophic explosion near these plants.

Car Radio OVER SCENES OF SMOGGY HOUSTON: "This is Randy Lemon's gardening spot..."

PALAST: On a clear day you can see Downtown Houston

RADIO: "A car went in through the front doors and out through the back doors"

STILLS OF BASEBALL GAME - HOUSTON ASTROS AT ENRON FIELD.

PALAST IN FRONT OF BALL PARK IN HOUSTON: This is Enron field - new home to the Houston Astros - $265 million including the sliding roof. You've never heard of Enron Corporation? They're America's Number One power trading team and they know you can't win the power game unless you play the political game and they're the champs. No one's given more money to the political campaigns of George Bush than Enron - let's go see if we can find their HQ.

The biggest power traders are on this corner.

[PALAST WALKING THROUGH DOWNTOWN HOUSTON ...] Is this it? No! El Paso - EL PASO's in a little trouble, under investigation for manipulating the California power market - luckily they gave 3/4 of a million to the Republican campaign. This it? -No that's Reliant -- $600,000 to the Republicans - Oh [POINTING TO BUILDING ACROSS STREET] Mr Farish's building ... He gave 140 thousand dollars and Bush made him ambassador to Great Britain - the guy who got France put up $400,000 ... lets see oh [POINTS TO FOURTH BUILDING] Dynegy! only 300 grand ... [LOOKS DOWN STREET] there's a new building maybe that's our boys.

PALAST: Investigations are proceeding into profiteering by power traders during the California energy crisis and black-outs. The State of California has accused El Paso corporation and Dynegy of deliberately restricting the flow of natural gas through the pipeline from Texas CREATING an artificial shortage which caused prices to go up ten fold.

[GRAPHIC - CALIFORNIA GAS PRICE SPIKE.]

[graphic - Clinton notice DOE

So - on December 14 President Clinton ordered an end to speculation in energy prices in California - which bit into the profits of El Paso and Dynegy ... and Enron and Reliant too. But they were betting on another horse. Between them they gave $3.5 million to Bush and the Republicans.

Reliant told us "Frankly, we feel some andidate's philosophies will benefit the company, its stockholders, and its customers more than will others"

Three days after his inauguation Bush swept away Clinton's anti-speculation orders.

[PHOTO OF BUSH ANNOUNCEMENT ENDING CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY CONTROLS]

Profits for these four power traders are up 220 million in the first quarter.

PALAST IN FRONT OF ENRON: After Bush lifted controls Enron's profits jumped up by 87 million not a bad return on political contributions of 1.8 million dollars.

PALAST IN AIRPLANE TAKING OFF FROM RURAL AIRSTRIP ...

We've skedaddled out of the big city following the Bush money trail 200 miles West into the Mesquite ranches and cowboy country - but there's a big hole on the range where the deer and antelopes should be playing.

FILM FROM PALAST'S PLANE OF HUGE STRIP MINE, BLACK MILE-LONG PIT ...

PALAST IN AIRPLANE: See that lovely scar down there? that's a lignite strip mine - about the filthiest fuel you can burn feeds the Alcoa aluminum plant I wonder what its like to live next door to that thing?

Alcoa was facing a demand to cut emissions by 50%, that would have meant replacing the cheap and dirty lignite with clean but expensive natural gas.

But Within a month of passage of Bush's 'voluntary' pollution law,attorneys with the law firm pleading Alcoa's case to the regulators gave $170,000 to the Republican campaign. Coincidence? Alcoa deny any link they told us they "exert no control over the legal and lobbying firms" they retain.

According to Alcoa's own figures not switching to gas saved them $100 million.

PALAST - DRIVING THROUGH SMALL TEXAS TOWN ... In sleepy Rockdale, rancher Wayne Brinkley faces the fallout.

PALAST - POINTING AT DIRTY FARM TRAILER - WHY DON'T YOU CLEAN THAT THING,BUDDY? WAYNE: YA' CAN'T. I TRIED EVERYTHING. THAT'S POTASH FROM THE PLANT. SEE THAT RUST ON THAT SHED? THAT'S FROM THE PLANT TOO. BUT IF THEIR POISONS KILL THAT TREE (POINTS TO OAK), I'LL BE REALLY MAD!

PALAST - LOOKING AT DEAD MESQUITE: Too late for that one

WAYNE: POINTING TO ALCOA ALUMINUM PLANT IN DISTANCE, BROWN SMOKE POURING FROM STACKS ...

It's like Sulphur burning your skin ... there's just lot of pollution comes out of that plant they just don't seem like they want to do anything about it.

PALAST: And there will be no point going to the Environmental Protection Agency. Newsnight has discovered, deep in Bush's new budget, the million-dollar fund for civil enforcement to deter pollution will be axed. Law enforcement will be left to locals - and in Texas, the weak State watchdog is letting Alcoa open a new lignite pit 20 miles away.

Other Texas ranchers are stopping by Wayne's to get a look at their future...

Rancher Billie Woods drives in - Hi wayne how's it going - Billie's ranch is now threatened

PALAST TO BILLIE: Its only a little hole - hey, America needs aluminum.

B: Its not a little hole! its 250 feet deep! - they pump out all the water my well will go dry. they run their operations 365 days a year 24 hours a day. I will no longer be able to see stars at night.

Palast voice: Alcoa's former chief Paul O'Neill is making new friends - Bush named him Secretary of the US Treasury ... so O'Neill has to sell off his Alcoa shares - he'll get about $100 million. Alcoa made a $100,000 contribution to the Bush Cheney inaugural. They told us this was in honor of Paul O'Neill.

He's also on Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Group.

Apart from Paul O'Neill, the committee includes Bush's Commerce Secretary Don Evans - he was CEO of Tom Brown Inc a billion dollar oil and gas company, and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, a motor industry favorite - they gave him $700,000 last year... and of course Dick Cheney, the Vice President,former boss of Halliburton which builds nuclear power plants and is the world's largest oil services company. And what a coincidence. Today, the Cheney group recommended building more nukes, drilling more oil and burning more coal.

MUSIC RADIO DRIVE IN TO AUSTIN Our hunt for the secret behind Bush's astonishing fundraising prowess eventually led us to the Texas state capital.

Executives of the big banking firm MBNA invested 3 million dollars in George Bush's political career. Their boss, Charles M Cawley, contributed $70,000 himself.

IN FRONT OF CAPITOL, WASHINGTON DC: Craig McDonald - [Director, Texans for Public Justice.]

- what did they get - one of the first major pieces of legislation to go through Congress under President Bush is a bankruptcy bill that protects mbna the largest manufacturer and seller of credit cards, citizens in this country can no longer write off credit card debt when they file for bankruptcy it was a key priority of Mr Cawley and his bank and he bet early and he bet often on our Governor would some day be in the White House and would some day be able to deliver on this favour

PALAST: Wall Street analysts put MBNA's gain at 75 million dollars

GRAPHIC: PAYBACK $75 MILLION

Cawley is a 'Pioneer' - not the kind that lives in a little house on the prairie -- but a member of a special club set up by George Bush.

MCDONALD: "He put together this network of what they call the pioneers, a group of 400 people most of them corporate executives who pledged to raise a minimum of $100,000. That network alone raised over 40 million dollars

PALAST: But what did they get in return? We went into the capital to ask a real Pioneer the tough questions ...

[Palast in the Office of Texas State Senator Teel Bivins] PALAST: Tell us about your chaps BIVINS: No they're not chaps! they're shaps! these are called shaps they're spelt c.h.a.p.s but I'm in the ranching business that's what a real Texan does...

Palast Senator Teel Bivins is a power in the Texas Legislature ... one of the founding pioneers, along with Ken Lay, CEO of Enron Corporation. George W gave the Senator his nick-name.

BIVINS: I'm Biv - he met me and i said Teel Bivins and he said Biv and that was it I've been Biv ever since...

So if Americans want to be on first-name terms with their President, do they have to pay for it?

BIVINS: The reality is individuals in a country of 300 million people have very little opportunity to speak to the President of the United States

Palast to Bivins: Well, Ken Lay who was a Pioneer had direct access to the President as a member of the transition team advising the Governor on energy matters including those issues in California which made Enron a very profitable corporation this year so he's had direct access as a Pioneer?

BIVINS: And so you wouldn't have direct access if you had spent 2 years of your life working hard to get this guy elected President raising hundreds of thousands of dollars... "you dance with them what brung ya"

[Palast flying over Houston chemical plants, traffic and smog, playing Hendrix ...] This is the model for Bush's America - for Bush's planet - It's all in Cheney's energy announcement - another Pioneer payday.

END OF TRANSCRIPT


-------- activists

Greenpeace Dumps Coal Outside Cheney Home

May 17, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/science/science-bush-energy-g.html?searchpv=reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The environmental group Greenpeace dumped a mound of coal and oil barrels on Thursday outside Vice President Dick Cheney's official residence in a protest against the Bush administration's energy plan.

The Greenpeace protest came as President Bush unveiled recommendations of an energy task force led by Cheney, which increases energy production and encourages conservation.

Several tons of coal and a handful of oil barrels blocked an entrance to Cheney's residence on the grounds of the Naval Observatory in northwest Washington and activists carried banners with slogans such as ``Bush/Cheney Energy Scam.''

``The Bush/Cheney energy plan is not an energy plan, it's an energy scam. The Bush/Cheney plan could have been written by the oil industry, the coal industry and the nuclear power industry,'' said Greenpeace activist Andrea Durbin.

Police observed the truck dumping the coal and took down the names of those involved. There were no arrests.

A spokeswoman for Cheney declined comment on the incident.

In Amsterdam, earlier on Thursday, Greenpeace International slammed Bush's energy plan, saying the measures would increase the U.S. output of global warming gases.

Greenpeace climate policy director Bill Hare described the conservation measures as ``window dressing'' and said the call to increase fossil fuels use ran counter to efforts in other industrialized states to reduce ``greenhouse gas'' output.

A U.N. scientific body has said greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels, will contribute to warming of the earth's surface. That in turn will lead to higher ocean levels, dramatic changes in weather patterns and greater frequency of severe storms.

``This plan is going to substantially increase U.S. greenhouse gas emissions at a time when most of the industrialized countries are trying to reduce them,'' Hare told Reuters.

In March, Bush drew an international outcry by rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, which calls on industrialized countries to cut output of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, by an average of 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2010.

Bush said he rejected the pact, which has not been formally adopted by the international community, because it did not require emissions cuts by developing nations and would damage the U.S. economy.

Hare, who described the new Bush plan as ``profoundly depressing,'' said Greenpeace would still push for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol without the United States.

--------

ROLL YOUR OWN BLACKOUT the first day of summer June 21, 7-10 PM worldwide, all time zones.

From: "Viviane Lerner"
Thu, 17 May 2001 22:08:30 -0700
http://prorev.com/indexa.htm

As an alternative to George W. Bush's energy policies and lack of emphasis on efficiency, conservation and alternative fuels, there will be a voluntary rolling blackout on the first day of summer. It's a simple protest and a symbolic act. Turn out your lights from 7 PM - 10 PM on June 21.

Unplug whatever you can unplug in your house. Light a candle to the Sungoddess, kiss and tell or not, take a stroll in the dark, invent ghost stories, anything that's not electronic - have fun in the dark. Read the 1999 book "Natural Capitalism" by Hawken and Lovins to learn that conservation-high efficiency technologies already are on-the-shelf.



------- OneList (submissions from subscribers)

------- Depleted Uranium Keeps On Killing!