<a href=www.newsday.com>Newsday.com By Tom McGinty Staff Writer April 2, 2003, 7:30 PM EST

A March 24 notice from the Long Island Power Authority and KeySpan Corp. informed John Brolly that his balanced-billing payment for electricity and natural gas was about to go up by $100 a month, a 35-percent increase.

What it didn't tell Brolly, a certified public accountant who is pretty good with numbers, was why.

"Is it electricity or gas? Is it usage or price? You look at this [notice], and it really doesn't tell you much," said Brolly, who lives in Plainview.

The spike in Brolly's utility bill is almost entirely attributable to cold weather and soaring fuel prices, according to LIPA and KeySpan, and he is far from alone.

While the adjustments may surprise LIPA and KeySpan's 149,000 balanced-billing customers, other gas and heating oil users have been paying higher bills for months.

KeySpan officials said that from November through March the average heating customer used 38 percent more natural gas than the same period last winter, and the price of the fuel was 75 percent higher.

The cost of gas accounts for about 50 percent of heating bills, with the rest going toward fees for long-distance transmission and local distribution of the fuel. That means the net impact on gas heating bills is a 40-percent increase over last year, with the November-to-March total cost going from $900 to $1,260 for the average homeowner, KeySpan officials said.

Heating oil customers did not fare any better, according to Kevin Rooney, chief executive of the Oil Heat Institute of Long Island. From October through March last year, an average oil customer who did not have long-term, fixed-rate contracts paid about $850, Rooney said. This year, that same customer paid about $1,400, he said.

Fuel use was up because this winter was 10 percent colder than the 40-year average and a whopping 42 percent colder than last year's mild winter, according to the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.

The high cost of fuel can be attributed to a confluence of factors, including the high demand, fears about the impact of a war in the Middle East, and a drastic reduction in the amount of oil flowing from politically troubled Venezuela, said Rooney, who called it "an energy version of the perfect storm."

KeySpan spokeswoman Bonnie Habyan pointed out that monthly bills always break down the charges and say how far actual costs are diverging from the projections that were used to set the monthly payment.

Brolly said he suspected most customers do what he does: Look at the bottom line and ignore the complicated details. "Maybe I shouldn't be on balanced billing," he said. "You're dumb and happy for three months and then, all of a sudden, wow! Maybe I should just get killed each month."

<a href=www.dailytelegraph.co.uk> Money

Britain's finest oil companies - BP and Shell - like to jockey for the limelight. Yesterday, the BP boss Lord Browne, hampered for so long by the millstone of production targets hanging on his neck, was vindicated - for the time being anyway - for his policy of focusing on exploration and production.

The war in Iraq, the strike in Venezuela and civil strife in Nigeria have all pushed the price of crude oil northward in the first quarter. Brent crude, at an average price of just less than $31.50, is trading more than $10 higher than a year ago.

That price will help BP double its first-quarter net profits from last year and help fund its $20 billion capital expenditure programme, outlined in the full-year results.

Suddenly, now the prices are steep, the idea of investing $6.75 billion for a 50pc stake in Russia's TNK Oil seems even more of a masterstroke. BP should be more than able to turn a healthy profit out of Russia's difficult terrain - if the prices stay high.

BP's advance into far-flung Angola and Azerbaijan to win the big reservoirs also seems a good strategy. Of course, the picture changes somewhat if and when the oil price loses its instability premium. External events make it difficult to predict how far prices will fall, but they will fall.

At that point, BP's operations look less rosy. Refining margins are looking fatter than last year but worries about its US refineries continue.

In addition, analysts are worried that BP has failed to capitalise on the soaring US gas price - despite its relatively high exposure in the market. Such worries saw the shares fall 9.25 to 406.25.

BP is trading off 14 times future earnings and yielding 3.5pc. Until Lord Browne's bold new strategy starts to pay some dividends on exploration and production, and with BP's wobbly performance elsewhere, it's best to hold for now.

Posted on Wed, Apr. 02, 2003 By Gary Richards Mercury News

California motorists can expect wild hikes in gas prices for years to come -- and the state says it's not because big oil is gouging us.

Motorists in the state are consuming 3 percent more gas every year, and that added demand is outstripping the 1 percent increase that California refineries can realistically be expected to produce annually, said William Keese, chairman of the California Energy Commission.

The state issued a report today stating the record run-up in pump prices is due to market conditions and not the manipulation of the major oil producers. The report indicated that prices will likely fall below $2 a gallon statewide soon, mainly because crude oil prices continue to ease.

But the long-term prognosis, hinted Keese, is not promising.

Drivers in the state burned up more than 14.2 billion gallons of gas last year, the result of an increase in sales of gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles, longer commutes and a growing population.

Increasing that demand just 3 percent means an extra 420 million gallons is consumed annually, an increase likely to lead to more wild spikes at the corner gas station.

You're going to need a steady flow of imports or $2 a gallon gas is going to be annual event out there,'' said Mark Mahoney, who tracks fuel prices on the West Coast for Oil Price Information Service. Because you pretty much can forget about building new refineries.''

To offset the state's growing dependence on oil, the Energy Commission is expected to recommend the creation of a reserve supply of gas that can be tapped when inventories drop.

Clearly, conserving gasoline is not only important for saving money,'' said Jennifer Mack of the state auto club. It's going to be very important for reducing overall demand in the future. . . . But we also have to learn ways to reduce fuel consumption now.''

The state is considering attempts to reduce the growing consumption by hiking gas taxes and fees and offering rebates and incentives for hybrid cars, which partly operate on electricity. The proposals will be presented to the state Legislature and Gov. Gray Davis in June.

The latest study said the current spike was due to several factors -- the doubling of crude oil prices because of uncertainty about war in the Middle East and production interruptions in Nigeria and Venezuela.

However, Keese added, the change from MTBE to ethanol has had little impact on the current prices. He said about 80 percent of the gas being sold in the state was now free of MTBE.

Self-serve unleaded gas was selling for $2.16 a gallon statewide today, down two cents from the record high of $2.18 set on March 22. San Francisco again had the most expensive prices in California at $2.26 a gallon, while San Jose's average stood at $2.15.

Wholesale prices have dropped about 42 cents per gallon since March 15, but retail prices are falling at a much slower pace -- just a couple of pennies.

But by next Monday they should fall significantly,'' Keese said. We expect prices under $2 in most parts of California by the end of this week. If they are not, we'll be concerned.''

Crude oil fell to $28.50 a barrel today, on expectations the war in Iraq would soon end. That's down 28 percent from a 12-year high of $39.99 a barrel in February.

In addition, U.S. crude-oil imports were the highest recorded by the Energy Department since it began compiling weekly figures in 1990.

Thursday, 3 April 2003, 12:03 pm Press Release: US State Department

Pursuit of Three Important Objectives in the Western Hemisphere

J. Curtis Struble, Acting Assistant Secretary Of State, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Remarks to the United States Senate Committee On Foreign Relations Washington, DC April 2, 2003

As prepared Chairman and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Administration's foreign assistance priorities for the Western Hemisphere. No region of the world is more important to our prosperity and security than the Western Hemisphere. In no other region do events have the capacity to so directly and so immediately affect our national interests and the well-being of the American people.

We are at a critical juncture in the economic and political development of the Americas. The weaker and more vulnerable economies of Latin America have been badly hurt by the combination of a U.S. economic slowdown, a more risk-averse attitude among international investors, and the impact of September 11, 2001 on tourism and hemispheric trade. The ensuing financial crises have been contained for now, though there are no grounds for complacency. Even during the "good times," hemispheric growth was weak except for star performers like Chile, El Salvador, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic, which embraced reform and moved to open their economies. Too many of our hemisphere's citizens have begun to question whether the triumph of democracy the crowning achievement of the hemisphere in the last 20 years can better their lives.

At the same time, there are encouraging signs that the framework for success has been built throughout the region: economic development in Mexico resulting from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); Chile's strong economic performance; and the predominance of democracy, which has brought freedom to every nation in the hemisphere save one. Recent elections in the hemisphere have been celebrations of democracy, including peaceful transitions to new administrations. With the Inter-American Democratic Charter, we have recognized the hemispheric consensus for the freedoms we cherish and responsibilities we accept. Economic progress, though often tenuous, has been achieved through effort and sacrifice. Poverty has declined in countries embracing reform, such as Mexico, Chile, and El Salvador. We have created partnerships to advance common interests with Canada, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, and of, course, Mexico. In short, we have made great progress. U.S. assistance has been, and continues to be, a major factor in our success. That said, our work is far from over.

We pursue three objectives in the hemisphere: deepening democracy, including increasing governmental integrity; encouraging both national and individual development, including expanding economies to strengthen trade; and enhancing security, including securing our hemisphere against the depredations of terrorism, increased personal security, and heightened regional stability.

Our continued progress in achieving these aims in the hemisphere requires that we confront, in a systematic way, those problems that have seemed too large and entrenched to address directly. They include corruption, failures of governance, inadequate education systems, insufficient health care, and crime. We can no longer afford to dismiss these issues as endemic or to address transnational threats in a piecemeal fashion. The kind of progress we want the kind that creates strong, resilient democracies and growing, modern economies requires a broad commitment to address these issues. Read More

Environment News Service

WASHINGTON, DC, April 2, 2003 (ENS) - U.S. agricultural imports are being treated unfairly by the European Union, Russia, China, Mexico, Australia, Japan, Taiwan and Venezuela, according to the latest annual report from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Issued Tuesday, the report says the U.S. lost agricultural export opportunities worth $200 million a year.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick : "Bringing down barriers to trade promotes growth and prosperity, for the United States and for the world," said U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick. "American workers, businesses, and farmers expect a level playing field abroad. The Bush administration is committed to identifying unfair barriers to U.S. exports and to working aggressively with our trading partners to eliminate those barriers."

The persistence of trade barriers affirms the need for the United States to remain actively engaged in promoting and enforcing trade liberalization at all levels, said Zoellick.

The U.S. will pursue its interests globally, in the ongoing World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations; regionally, through the Free Trade Area of the Americas negotiations; and bilaterally, through free trade agreements with trading partners such as Chile, Singapore, Morocco, Australia, the five members of the Central American Common Market, and the five members of the Southern African Customs Union.

U.S. geneticist Victor Raboy examines a plant from a new line of corn he developed. The new corn is designed to be lower in phytic acid, a compound that may reduce nutrient absorption during human digestion. (Photo by Keith Weller courtesy USDA) Since the European Union imposed a moratorium on imports of agricultural biotech products in 1998, U.S corn [maize] exports to the EU have declined by 55 percent, the USTR report says.

U.S. poultry exports to Russia have decreased by almost 45 percent since import restrictions on U.S. poultry went into effect. Russia is the top U.S. export market for poultry, and the import restrictions helped contribute to a $500 million decline in U.S. poultry exports to the world last year.

Other examples the USTR gives of unfair treatment of U.S. agricultural exports include Chinese tariff-rate quotas on imports of wheat, corn, rice, cotton, barley, oilseed and vegetable oils.

Mexican anti-dumping duties on beef, rice, swine, and apples, an illegitimate tax on beverages containing high fructose corn syrup, and restrictions on fruit and dry beans, are issues the USTR complains about. A "dramatic increase" in trade barriers to agriculture was reported for Mexico over the past year, the report says.

The World Trade Organization is holding negotiations on altering international agricultural trade rules, but the organization's member governments missed a March 31 deadline for establishing “modalities” in the agriculture negotiations.

These modalities are targets, including numerical targets, for achieving the objectives of the negotiations, as well as issues related to rules. They will set parameters for the final agreement in the agriculture negotiations, for example how far import duties should be cut, and subsidies reduced or eliminated, and over what periods of time.

Along with almost all the other negotiations under the Doha Development Agenda, so named for the place where they began in Doha, Qatar, the agriculture talks are scheduled to end by January 1, 2005. This timetable was agreed in November 2001, at the Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha.

U.S. government food scientist Gene Lyon checks chickens for tenderness. (Photo by Stephen Ausmus courtesy USDA) Zoellick and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman expressed disappointment but not surprise that the deadline passed without agreement. The negotiators can work through the problems and "should not settle for insignificant changes," they said in a joint statement Monday.

The WTO negotiations are attempting to find ways for wealthy nations to reduce their agricultural subsidies, the issue at the core of the current round of negotiations at the WTO. The developing nations would benefit if amounts to $300 billion a year in subsidies paid by rich nations to their farmers were reduced.

If the developing nations, most of which have economies based on agriculture, are not satisfied with the agricultural talks, they may withhold agreement to the opening of markets favored by the industrialized nations, especially in services like banking, telecommunications and information technology.

Veneman and Zoellick said jointly, "The U.S. proposal to reform the world agricultural trade takes a long stride toward the goals we should be seeking, and which were detailed in the Doha mandate. We want to eliminate export subsidies. We want to cut other subsidies that distort farm production by $100 billion, in the process harmonizing the amount of permitted subsidies at much lower levels - moving toward fairer, more equal treatment on the path to eliminating these subsidies, too. We want to cut global agricultural tariffs by 75 percent, with no tariff higher than 25 percent."

Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi of Thailand is Director-General of the World Trade Organization until September 1, 2005. (Photo courtesy WTO) WTO Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi also expressed disappointment over the failure by WTO member governments to agree on a framework for future agriculture trade reform, but he said progress in the global trade negotiations can still be achieved provided governments continue to work towards bridging their differences.

“The Doha Development Agenda negotiations are a single undertaking," said Panitchpakdi. "No element of them will be agreed until all areas are agreed. But significant progress in some areas often provides negotiators with an incentive to overcome their differences even on the most politically sensitive questions."

In a press briefing Monday, Zoellick said he still believes the Doha round of negotiations could be completed on schedule by January 2005. Looking ahead to the WTO ministers' meeting scheduled for September in Cancun, Mexico, he sought to play down the missed March 31 deadline and wide differences that remain over agriculture.

"This is not the first time a deadline has been missed, and it won't be the last," he said.

Zoellick said he found no evidence that the Iraq war was hurting the WTO negotiations. If anything, he said, the war should reinforce the need to help developing countries expand their economies through open trade.