A key vote on a controversial plan to vaporize Sacramento's garbage and turn it into energy was delayed Thursday after perturbed City Council members questioned whether experts who have testified before them about the technology were truly independent.

At times angry, council members directed Jim Rinehart, the city's economic development manager, to contact other scientists and work out a more palatable agreement with the Sacramento company proposing the deal. The matter will next be heard Nov. 18.

The council reacted in part to a Bee story published Thursday that detailed how U.S. Science & Technology – the company proposing the waste-to-energy plant – had handpicked and paid for two people to travel to Sacramento to speak to the City Council. It described how U.S. Science & Technology's CEO said he was discussing future research employment and other financial deals with those experts.

City Councilwoman Lauren Hammond, who has championed the U.S. Science & Technology proposal, said new voices were needed.

"The only nagging concern I have is independent analysis," Hammond said. "Then the mayor and council will feel better about entering into an agreement."

Councilman Kevin McCarty agreed. "As policymakers, we want to know the people who have a stake in the game."

McCarty added that one expert, architect Lou Circeo – who helped develop the "plasma arc gasification" technology – couldn't be viewed as independent.

"What the hell is the guy who is the godfather of the technology going to say?" McCarty said. "It makes us look rather silly."

A chastened Rinehart, who had allowed U.S. Science & Technology to choose two of four experts who appeared before the council at an April workshop, said he would do better due diligence as the council prepares to consider a binding agreement – one step in the approval process.

"My intent was honorable," Rinehart said. "If the implementation didn't come through, I apologize."

Circeo is on contract with a company called Geoplasma, through Georgia Tech University, campus officials said. Circeo told The Bee he is being paid by Geoplasma as a spokesman and adviser.

Geoplasma was described in U.S. Science & Technology's original proposal to the city as a corporate partner, and the company is a sometimes-partner of Alter NRG Corp., currently slated to design the Sacramento facility.

In addition, Circeo is CEO of a company named Plasma Arc Consultants Inc., according to Georgia Secretary of State documents.

William Ludwig, the CEO of U.S. Science & Technology, told The Bee earlier this week that he had discussed offering Circeo research work at the Sacramento plant, but nothing had been finalized. He also said that Iowa engineer Gary Young, the other expert, had approached him about perhaps using Young's patented technology on the Sacramento project.

At Thursday's council meeting, Ludwig said Circeo was not affiliated with U.S. Science & Technology or Geoplasma. He said his company had been "totally transparent" with city officials.

But under questioning by McCarty, he acknowledged Circeo might have agreements with other companies, including Geoplasma. McCarty then asked Ludwig if that wasn't something that the council and the public should know.

"No," Ludwig said. "I consider that normal academic behavior."

With plasma arc technology, superheated electrified gas, or plasma, along with coke (a derivative of coal) vaporizes trash, producing a synthetic fuel that can be sold to energy companies. The Sacramento plant would be built and operated privately.

Under the proposal being considered by the council, the city's primary obligation would be to pledge 2,100 tons of garbage a week for 25 years.

Rinehart and Ludwig told the council that the binding agreement was necessary to signal the city's interest in the plan. That agreement then could be taken to lenders considering providing financing.

Rinehart said agreeing to the deal is the only way the city could gain access to complete information about U.S. Science & Technology's financing plans. He said that also is the only way to get emission data.

City Council members balked, however, at entering into an agreement with so many unanswered questions about financing and the science.

The issue of the experts was another factor for some.

Councilman Steve Cohn got into a heated exchange with Rinehart, and said it was a red flag when the city couldn't perform due diligence without a binding agreement.

Last year, the city manager's office solicited "requests for qualifications" seeking companies interested in providing waste-to-energy plans. U.S. Science & Technology submitted its plan in October 2007, and the council recommended entering exclusive negotiations.

Cohn said the city made that decision without taking a close look at alternate plans.

"You're trying to box us in where we only have one choice," he said.

Call The Bee's Terri Hardy, (916) 321-1073.