a007  2145  28 Oct 74
Sawhill-Energy Bjt 330, 2 takes 700
Wirephoto WX1
By STAN BENJAMIN
Associated Press Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal Energy 8administrator John C. Sawhill is
backing energy conservation in a policy struggle to decide whether
the nation should burn less fuel or mine and drill for more.
    Sawhill said in an interview Monday that he believes energy
conservation is the nation's only short-range answer and is better
than damaging the environment by all-out fuel production, which might
require massive strip-mining in the West and drilling off the
untouched Atlantic and Alaskan coasts.
    Sawhill said this was the key energy decision facing President
Ford.
    He said he thinks the public favors energy conservation and he will
seek public hearings before the Cabinet-level Energy Resources
Council advises the President on what his decision should be.
    The council is chaired by Interior Secretary Rogers C.B. Morton,
whose department leases federal coal and oil areas for development.
    Sawhill said that ''others in the administration,'' whom he did not
identify, probably would argue for increasing energy production, but
he indicated he would rather quit than back off his support for
energy conservation.
    Sawhill's FEA is soon to give the President a ''Project
Independence'' report, whose first draft makes no specific
recommendations but presents a strong case for energy conservation.
Sawhill said no major changes are expected in the final version.
    Here are Sawhill's answers to key energy policy questions:
    Q. Is it possible to have continuing growth in the economy while
reducing the growth of energy consumption?
    A. We did not explicitly study that question, but I do feel there
is a great deal we can do to reduce energy demand without having a
significant impact on economic growth . . . I don't think any other
steps that we proposed in our demand-reduction strategy would have
serious impacts on GNP (gross national product).
    Q. Is this view shared throughout the administration?
    A. I think there is some disagreement, although . . . we have not
really received any explicit statement o disagreement.
    MORE
    
0045aES 10-29
***************

a007  2145  28 Oct 74
Sawhill-Energy Bjt 330, 2 takes 700
Wirephoto WX1
By STAN BENJAMIN
Associated Press Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal Energy 8administrator John C. Sawhill is
backing energy conservation in a policy struggle to decide whether
the nation should burn less fuel or mine and drill for more.
    Sawhill said in an interview Monday that he believes energy
conservation is the nation's only short-range answer and is better
than damaging the environment by all-out fuel production, which might
require massive strip-mining in the West and drilling off the
untouched Atlantic and Alaskan coasts.
    Sawhill said this was the key energy decision facing President
Ford.
    He said he thinks the public favors energy conservation and he will
seek public hearings before the Cabinet-level Energy Resources
Council advises the President on what his decision should be.
    The council is chaired by Interior Secretary Rogers C.B. Morton,
whose department leases federal coal and oil areas for development.
    Sawhill said that ''others in the administration,'' whom he did not
identify, probably would argue for increasing energy production, but
he indicated he would rather quit than back off his support for
energy conservation.
    Sawhill's FEA is soon to give the President a ''Project
Independence'' report, whose first draft makes no specific
recommendations but presents a strong case for energy conservation.
Sawhill said no major changes are expected in the final version.
    Here are Sawhill's answers to key energy policy questions:
    Q. Is it possible to have continuing growth in the economy while
reducing the growth of energy consumption?
    A. We did not explicitly study that question, but I do feel there
is a great deal we can do to reduce energy demand without having a
significant impact on economic growth . . . I don't think any other
steps that we proposed in our demand-reduction strategy would have
serious impacts on GNP (gross national product).
    Q. Is this view shared throughout the administration?
    A. I think there is some disagreement, although . . . we have not
really received any explicit statement o disagreement.
    MORE
    
0045aES 10-29
***************

a008  2152  28 Oct 74
WASHINGTON Sawhill-Energy Bjt take 2: disagreement. 370
    Q. Is there any general agreement on the energy situation and
goals, in terms of conservation and supply increases, or is it still
wide open?
    A. I think it's still pretty wide open.
    i think it's clear that FEA has a bias towards conservation, and
that we feel strongly - I do, personally - that in the short range
this is the only answer, and in the longer range it's preferable to
taking some of the environmental risks associated with massive
efforts to increase supplies.
    On the other hand, there are others in the administration that, I'm
sure, will argue for moving more rapidly to expand energy supplies.
    Q. So that's the major trade-off: whether to cut your energy growth
in half or to double your production rate?
    A. Yes, it's that kind of trade-off . . .
    Do you interfere with the market mechanism in order to reduce
demand and, in a sense, take away some of the people's freedoms - for
example, their freedom to buy a very large automobile.
    Or do you take measures to accelerate supply and thereby run
greate environmental risks?
    Q. Doesn't accelerating energy supply also restrict your freedom of
choice, to . . .
    A. Live in a clean environment. Yes. You really have to decide what
values are most important to you.
    Q. Shouldn't such value judgments be based on public opinion?
    A. Yes. In our hearings around the country I found very strong
support for conservation. That's one of the things that convinced me
. . . Not only did I think it was the right policy, but also I felt
it was something the American people wanted.
    Q. There are persistent rumors that someone is trying to get you
out of your job. Are they true?
    A. I've heard the rumors, that's all.
    Obviously, I have probably gone further in energy conservation than
some others might think appropriate.
    But my feeling is that's the right thing to do. And if it turns out
that there are others in the administration who feel that I can't
really be effective in my job because I've taken these positions,
then maybe I should leave.
    
0051aES 10-29
***************