Subject: Business Week Wind article
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 08:20:00 -0700 (PDT)

Mary -- 

I promised to let you know how it went with Adam Umanoff and Janet Ginsberg 
of Business Week on her story about proposed cuts on renewable energy 
research.  In the course of the interview, Janet introduced the word 
"commentary" in describing the piece.  While her questions were on both sides 
of the issue, she seemed to be leaning toward keeping the money for renewable 
energy, particularly when you consider the things she told you over the last 
couple of days.

Adam did a nice job of staying out of sandtraps, particularly when she asked 
him about the argument of why the government should subsidize a deep-pocket 
like Enron.  Adam responded that from the beginning it has been the 
government's objective to get results from its research efforts, teaming with 
corporate partners, and that companies like Enron have delivered.  She also 
asked him if he thought budget cuts would have a catastrophic impact on the 
industry, particularly the small players.  He said he could not speak to the 
impact on smaller players and that, while the funding and the research are 
important, he doubted that the result would be catastrophic.  Adam said that 
he could not argue with the Energy Secretary's view that wind was one of the 
mature renewables, and that we would not speculate about what Enron would do 
if the funding went away.  Aside from that, he basically talked about the 
importance of the research, the critical nature of continually renewing the 
source, and the competitive landscape versus subsidized European firms.

Certainly if she wants to cherry pick Adam's comments to support either side 
of the argument, she can.  However, Adam played it down the middle.  

Thanks for all your thought on this.

Vance