PROPOSITION ONE COMMITTEE
PO BOX 27217, WASHINGTON, DC 20038 USA
202-462-0757-- (voice) | 202-265-5389 -- (fax)
prop1@prop1.org -- (e-mail) | http://prop1.org -- (World-Wide-Web)
April 29, 1998
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON
1424 Longworth Building
Washington DC 20515-5101
Dear Mrs. Norton,
This winter, pursuant to Section 801 of the Department
of Energy ("DoE") Organization Act, DoE held a series
of public meetings -- titled Comprehensive National Energy Strategy
Hearings ("CNES-Hearings") -- on the subject of DoE's
"National Energy Policy Plan."
According to the DoE, the Comprehensive National Energy
Strategy has been tailored with the intention of "Improving
the efficiency of our energy system … Ensuring against energy
disruptions … Expanding future energy choices through wise
investments in basic science and new technologies…. Cooperating
internationally on energy issues to help develop the means to
address global economic, security, and environmental concerns."
Given these concerns, we can appreciate the great importance of
the issues under discussion.
I attended the CNES-Hearing in D.C. on February 19, 1998,
where I asked two questions. In response to my oral questions
Secretary Pena, said there was no one present to answer the questions,
but assured me that the DoE would reply in writing. I re-articulated
my oral questions with a follow up written comment. See, attached
letter.
Although I have yet to receive any response to the specific
questions I posed at the hearing, the DoE did send me an "Advance
Copy" of the Comprehensive Energy Policy Strategy, including
a Summary of Public Comment at the CNES-Hearings, and an appendix.
I found the Public Comment section disappointing for two reasons.
First, it noted, without answering, the two questions which I
asked at the CNES-Hearing. Second, it states "one commenter,"
when, in fact, I know that the issue was raised by more people
than just myself. See, attached page 55, highlighted area.
Therefore, I am writing to you in the hope that you can
get the DoE to answer my two questions: (1) Has
the DoE fully investigated this alleged 'zero point technology,'
and, if so, where are the results of this investigation available?
(2) If the DoE has not fully debunked the "zero
point technology," why has no comprehensive examination of
'zero point technology' been concluded?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
William Thomas