Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

New England. Your brother, former Senator Kennedy, I think among all Senators, at least in the recent years, began the emphasis upon the New England regional outlook which now, I think, preoccupies us all. This outlook, I think we can carry forward by the New England Governors Conference over the years. I think this hearing, yourself, and myself and the two distinguished Governors, representing northern and southern New England are symbolically emphasizing our concern within the important field of power development and environmental values. We take the regional approach. I emphasize that it is our intention to do so and, indeed, our determination to do so. I would hope that by your testimony in this hearing we may assure all people in New England, including the interests directly concerned, to move in this direction.

There are recommendations from many sources which seem to be developing to the effect that New England needs a single, bulk power supply mechanism. The private utilities see this carried out by NEPOOL and the proposed mergers of the big systems.

One highly responsible consulting firm has recommended that a governmental authority be given sole power to construct generating plants and heavy transmission lines, leaving distribution to the private and public utilities. In each of these kinds of proposals the issue is the same. The question we are trying to determine in hearings such as this, is, how do we approach it?

I think your legislation and mine strike a balance between these two points of view. We are talking about a regional board which sets standards and certifies construction with environmental protection. So I am delighted that you are here this morning.

I ought, in the interest of the question of time, make a disclaimer. This has nothing to do with the fact that a convention was recently held in Massachusetts or that there is a primary election going on in Maine today. Thank you.

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much.

Senator MUSKIE. We will now turn to the other side of the political aisle in Massachusetts and invite the distinguished Governor, Governor Sargent, to present his testimony. Already, in his relatively short period in office, he has demonstrated an interest in both of these areas of power generation, New England's power need and environmental values. It is a pleasure to welcome him this morning.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANCIS W. SARGENT, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Governor SARGENT. Thank you very much, Senator Muskie. We welcome you to southern New England. I think you will note there is a very marked improvement in the weather since you left Maine and moved into Massachusetts this morning.

Senator MUSKIE. I flew down this morning.

Governor SARGENT. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I have my glasses but I'm going to try to read without them. I don't know how this will work. I am very pleased this morning to not only welcome you here but also to welcome your distinguished colleague and my friend, Gov. Kenneth M. Curtis, of the State of Maine, whom I believe will be testifying directly afterward.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by congratulating you for holding this hearing, and for filing the legislation under consideration today: The Intergovernmental Coordination of Power Development and Environmental Protection Act, Senate 2752. You have focused public attention on one of the most difficult problems our society faces: How can we provide for America's expanding power needs without further destroying the environment? Like you, Mr. Chairman, I have been deeply involved for many years in the fight to save the environment.

I might say that I think, like you, also, have noted there are many Johnny-come-latelies that have gotten into this subject and apparently, regardless of what office one runs for, whether it is sewer commissioner in Spokane, Wash., or cemetery commissioner in Tallahassee, Fla., you've got to talk about the environment. I think you and I have been involved in this for some time and I think at long last we find we have support around the country for this grave problem that has concerned us for so long.

We both recognize that beyond the rhetoric lie some very hard questions-Is environmental destruction the price of affluence? Will our people pay more for goods and services in order to cut pollution? Will sweeping new legislation be necessary?

The production of electric power is perhaps the best example of what I mean. We must have more electricity- our industry, our entire economy cannot survive without it. But this means more powerplants which may pollute the air through the fuel they burn and the water through thermal pollution. Now there are the questions-some would say the unanswered questions of developing nuclear powerplants and disposing of radioactive wastes.

I think it is also fortunate that you have approached the problem on a regional basis. The future supply of electric power is a New England problem, not a Massachusetts problem, not a Maine problem, but truly a New England problem. If for some reason, while we New Englanders have demonstarted a regional consciousness on many issues, we have been unduly parochial about this one. That attitude must change, and I see encouraging signs in both the public and private sectors that it is changing.

What is the present situation in New England? To begin with we pay more for electricity than any other region of the country-approximately 30 percent more per kilowatt-hour for residential consumers. The costs of generating and transmitting electricity in New England are high. A principal reason for this is that economies of scale have not been realized. We have a large number of plants-296 according to 1968 figures and many of them are very, very small. I think this is really the problem.

There is increasing evidence that we do not have enough power, that the industry did not anticipate greatly increased demands. I have been concerned both about the short-term and the long-term implications of this fact.

The immediate question is whether we face the danger of so-called "brownouts" this summer. As you know, Mr. Chairman, this is a potentially serious problem in many areas of the country. In New England, fortunately, the situation as I am told is less serious. The

Office of Emergency Preparedness reported on May 5 that New England will have a 15-percent reserve capacity in fairly reliable units this

summer.

However, 2 weeks ago the Boston Edison Co. announced that it would reduce its voltage production by as much as 5 percent on extremely hot days. The company maintains that these reductions will not damage machines using electric power. However, too large reductions clearly could cause such damage. Because of my concern I have directed the State civil defense director, in cooperation with the Public Utilities Commission, to conduct an emergency study of the adequacy of electric power for Massachusetts. The study will be available within 2 weeks and I shall forward you a copy.

On a long-term basis, we must substantially increase the supply of electric power in order to sustain the New England region's economic growth. The figures are dramatic-in the next 20 years the power requirements of New England will quadruple. The annual use will rise from 59 billion kilowatt-hours to 268 billion kilowatt-hours. This will entail the construction of new plants, several of them nuclear, and an estimated 2,500 miles of transmission lines.

This development clearly contains the potential for environmental disaster. It calls for a regional overview and for a decisionmaking process that takes environmental factors into account. I am not sure that we have either one, and these features of your bill are very, very important.

At the moment a company wishing to build a powerplant in Massachusetts must receive approval at the Federal level from the Federal Power Commission, and the Atomic Energy Commission if the plant is nuclear. It must receive approval from the State Public Utilities Commission. Its discharges into the waters of the Commonwealth will come under the jurisdiction of the Division of Water Pollution Control, and its emissions into the air will be regulated by the Department of Public Health. I believe there is need for greater coordination, and I am particularly concerned that the environmental agencies may not be brought in at an early enough stage of the process.

The problem becomes even more complex when building a plant in one State can affect conditions in another. A good example is the proposed nuclear powerplant on the Connecticut River at Vernon, Vt. Discharges from this plant will not only enter the Connecticut River in western Massachusetts, there is a strong possibility that we will need to divert water from this river to the Quabbin Reservoir which supplies Metropolitan Boston with drinking water.

I believe that Senate bill 2752 makes a valuable contribution by emphasizing the regional dimensions of the problem and by stressing the importance of environmental factors. I believe the mechanism you have proposed, Mr. Chairman, a regional board to establish siting procedures and grant licenses for new plants, is a most interesting and most innovating one. The importance of the States' role is recognized by providing for gubernatorial appointment of board members. I would like to reserve a final comment on this particular structural solution until after the New England Governors have had an opportunity to consider the matter. As you may know, Mr. Chairman, the New England Regional Commission is about to complete a study of

the electric power situation in New England, and it will be presented to the Governors at their July meeting in Waterville Valley, N.H. This study will place special emphasis on environmental factors.

This joint effort by the Governors and the Commission is one example of an increased regional awareness of the power problem. The New England River Basins Commission is also acutely aware of it. The companies share this concern, as evidenced by the proposed New England Power Pool called NEPOOL, and the interim New England Power Exchange agreement called NEPEX.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me once again applaud your interest in the problem and the valuable contribution you have made to the dialog which will, one hopes, lead to its solution.

I feel that your bill does provide that machinery that would permit the regional consideration of such matters.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Governor, for your excellent statement. I expected, of course, that you and Governor Curtis would reserve your positions on the specifics of this legislation pending your study of the report which is before you. I think we will all probably learn something from this that will be useful in our consideration of this problem.

I would like to ask just a question or two to emphasize what you already have emphasized in your statement. This concerns the need for a regional approach which will have the result of more effectively forecasting our power needs, as well as planning our new power production in the light of the environmental values.

In May of this year the Federal Power Commission and the Office of Emergency Preparedness assured New England that there would be no serious power problems this summer. Based upon reports from utilities, they said there were adequate reserves. Yet in the very first week of June, as you know and as you have said, when utility leaders from all over the country met in this city there was a crisis, a brownout, a voltage reduction of 5 percent.

It seems to me that there were three lessons learned a month after the forecast. First, the power utilities were not prepared for the emergency; they had two plants down. Secondly, their estimates of the demand of Federal authorities were too low. Third, if it had not been for the supply of power from an outside source, we would have been in deep trouble.

What can the States do beyond what they are considering in this report to assure their citizens that there will be sufficient reserve power to prevent blackouts and brownouts? Do you feel that the NEPOOL and NEPEX arrangements and operation will be enough to protect New England for the summer, since they did not work through the first week of June?

Governor SARGENT. This is, of course, my concern, and this is why we are looking into this matter. I do think that we are unique in New England. I think we have an opportunity of working on a regional basis and we are used to working on a regional basis. I think we can do this perhaps better than in other areas.

But as I mentioned in my statement, I think the concern is that we're relying on so many very relatively small powerplants that we don't have this overall long-term solution of the problem.

Senator MUSKIE. There is one other danger point I would like to use your testimony to point out. That is the danger that the arrangements between NEPOOL and Con Ed of New York City may drain New England's reserves in the event of shortages in New York itself. These Con Ed reserves, on the basis of this Federal Power Commission report, are inadequate. With our tie-in, it seems to me that this is a potential drain on our New England resources which could put us in difficulty this summer.

Thank you very much, Governor.

Governor SARGENT. Thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate it. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you for coming.

I would like now to welcome my own Governor from northern New England who has had a longstanding interest in all of these areas that are being touched upon this morning. I think it is most appropriate that he should be here to give us his testimony. Governor, it is a pleasure.

STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH M. CURTIS, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MAINE, ACCOMPANIED BY JACK FEEHAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Governor CURTIS. Thank you very much, Senator. I have a gentleman with me that I know I don't have to introduce, Mr. Jack Feehan, chairman of the public utilities commission, and I asked him to come by in the event you might have some questions which you would like to propose to him at the end of my testimony.

I think that this hearing comes at a most urgent time and it's certainly to me a matter of encouragement that you are holding these hearings and that Governor Sargent and Senator Kennedy have taken time from their critical schedules to express their concern. So it is a privilege to appear before your Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations today to discuss the problem of harmonizing this country's growing power demands with its shrinking natural and environmental resources. As is usually the case in this conflict between the omnivorous American consumer and the austerity-advocating American environmentalist, who frequently fail to realize that they are the same person, neither extreme can prevail.

The less populated regions of the country, such as Maine, will not permit the power demands of heavily populated areas to cause powerplants to be built without regard to the environmental hazards of radioactivity, thermal pollution, and proliferating transmission lines. We simply cannot sacrifice our environment at random to produce the power which air conditions other areas to the temperatures and climate which we enjoy during the summer. At the same time, we must recognize that power must be provided to consuming regions, that we have an abundance of open space which contains some desirable plant locations, that powerplants need not pose uncontrollable environmental hazards, and that we ourselves need the power, the jobs, and the tax base generated by this essential industry. So, in short, there must be a middle ground in which we maximize power generation while minimizing environmental hazard.

As I understand S. 2752, its purpose is to create the regional gov

« ÎnapoiContinuă »