swiftly given a favorable report from committee. However, a new element has been introduced, which turns this welcomed decision into an awesome task.

Mr. Chairman, I am speaking about the nuclear power generating plant under construction in Vernon, Vt. Because when it goes into operation within 1 year it will discharge radioactive waste into the Connecticut River 16 miles upstream from the intake pipe of this proposed water diversion project. The design and site location of that plant in Vermont, Mr. Chairman, threatens to render hazardous for human consumption, the drinking water so badly needed here in Metropolitan Boston. Is such a situation avoidable? Should all States who are affected by an ill-planned nuclear site, such as the one in Vermont, have a voice in the location of that project?

The answer is a resounding "Yes" to both questions.

The Connecticut River is necessary to sustain human beings, it cannot be sacrificed to feed the unquenchable thirst of heated nuclear reactors. A governmental body to consider all of these factors must be created. S. 2752 provides for this.

Now, this type of legislation was needed many years ago and we cannot wait any longer for its enactment. Pollution does not respect State boundaries, Mr. Chairman. Therefore it is ludicrous that these same political subdivisions should hinder its eradication.

"As Vermont goes," Mr. Chairman, it will not be said, "So goes Massachusetts."

As an important aside, there is now movement afoot on the Federal level to bring the Atomic Energy Commission under more responsible control by separating its promotion and regulatory functions. This must be done soon and I hope it is done very soon.

Mr. Chairman, S. 2752 is an excellent bill and I heartily endorse it. But I must also urge your subcommittee to accept another task with equal competence and farsightedness. I would urge that you consider establishing an intergovernmental mechanism to study ways and means to reduce the power needs of this Nation.

For here lies the crux of our dilemma: We must reduce the per capita consumption of electrical energy. We must find more efficient manufacturing processes. We must find more efficient means to power our gadget-ridden society, and we must find more efficient and less disruptive means of producing energy. These are the major issues.

I look for a speedy passage of your bill, and I hope that you and your committee will enjoy your stay here in the Hub City. Thank you very much.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Senator Moakley, for your excellent statement. We are glad to have it and to have your support of at least the idea of the principle involved in the legislation before us. Senator MOAKLEY. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator MUSKIE. We would like to include in the record a letter from the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, General Court.

(The letter referred to follows:)

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, SPEAKER'S ROOM,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

June 15, 1970.

The Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, David M. Bartley regrets his inability to attend today's hearing due to a prior commitment. He

is currently addressing the Eleventh Annual Eastern States Taxpayers Conference at Grossinger, New York, regarding the role of state government in the next decade.

However, the Speaker wishes to register his interest in these proceedings with the hope that the effective and equitable resolution of the problems entailed in the development of reliable electric power will be the final product of such endeavors.

Sincerely,

J. F. LAWLESS, (For David M. Bartley, Speaker.)

Senator MUSKIE. Our next witness is Edward R. Willett, chairman of the State consumer's council. He is accompanied by Mr. Dermot P. Shea, executive secretary, Massachusetts Consumers' Council. Gentlemen, it is a pleasure to welcome you this morning.

STATEMENT OF DR. EDWARD R. WILLETT, CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE CONSUMERS' COUNCIL, ACCOMPANIED BY DERMOT SHEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, CONSUMERS' COUNCIL

Mr. WILLETT. Senator Muskie and members of the committee, I feel modest following these famous people, almost everyone knows them, very few people have heard of me. I must be permitted this introduction. I am chairman of the State Consumers' Council of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The consumers' council is required by law to represent the consumers' interests in the structure of government as well as the marketplace. I am, also, professor of finance at Northeastern University.

I am happy to appear before this committee today, particularly in view of the current New England power shortage. There is no question but that a New England Regional Commission along the lines proposed by S. 2752 is needed, not only for environmental factors but, also, for the proper planning and development of reliable lowcost electric power. Governor Sargent and others have discussed the environmental factors that must be considered. The location of plant and transmission lines, along with other related issues, are most important. Since they will be adequately discussed by other witnesses before your committee, I will, therefore, emphasize the power-shortage problem in my testimony.

You may be interested in learning that the consumers' council on November 2, 1965, recommended legislation for consideration for Massachusetts by the Massachusetts General Court requiring a fullscale investigation of the high cost of power and the availability and manner most suited to make this energy available to the consumers of the Commonwealth. This was recommended by the council because of the high cost of power, along with the potential power shortage that was developing. As the executive secretary of the consumers' council, Dermot P. Shea who is with me today, stated "Massachusetts has followed a water wheel power policy right into this atomic era." Incidentally, within 2 weeks of this action by the consumers' council the famous Northeast blackout occurred. I hope this is not a precedent for the statement I am making today.

New England still has the dubious honor of having the highest residential rate in the Continental United States for 250 kwh, second highest rate for 500 kwh, according to the Federal Power Commission.

New England, also, has the honor of having the highest commercial rate for 12 kilowatts and the second highest rate for industrial rate. 300 kilowatts. The New England region consumes less power than other regions of the country, primarily because it costs too much and it, also, is not available. The Federal Power Commission has stated that the cost differential cannot be blamed on fuel costs alone. It is obvious to me that inadequate planning is, also, a major factor in this matter of high power costs. I will not dwell on the high cost of energy, whether it be oil, natural gas, or electric power to the New England consumer. The facts are too well known. As an economist, I can state that the high cost of energy has been a major factor in retarding the economic growth of New England.

As the critical summer period is now approaching, I would like to comment on the current power shortage that Massachusetts and New England is facing. In this connection I refer to the Beck report and the testimony of the Consumers' Council's Executive Secretary, Dermot P. Shea, before the Legislative Committee on Government Regulations Committee of the Massachusetts General Court in February, 1970. These are included today as appendix A to my statement. The Beck report concerned the continued use of low voltage by the New England private power companies. On several occasions this past winter the situation was so critical that Massachusetts might well have had a serious blackout.

The New England private power companies have said that this region is in better shape than the rest of the country as far as the power shortage is concerned. The main reason given is that we have not had a large-scale construction of buildings with modern air conditioning, electric heating, and other uses of electric power. This region also has very little heavy industry and if the high cost of power continues, this situation will also continue to prevail.

I am told that the current power reserve of the New England private power companies is about 8 percent. I am also informed that most, if not all, of this reserve has been continually committed to regions outside of New England. Certainly the frequent use of low voltage by the private power companies would indicate that this is an unhealthy situation.

Recently the private power companies and the municipally-owned power companies of New England finally joined together in an electric power pool arrangement called "Nepool." This is splendid except there is nothing to pool except low voltage. Furthermore, this is practically a private arrangement that ultimately might lead to a homogenized type of power company operation which might seriously impair the possibility of obtaining lower rates. This is where a New England regional government body would be of great assistance, for such a matter would have to be approved by such a regional commission. There is no large-scale yard stick power measurement in the New England region.

The private power companies have seen to it that in opposing the Dickey-Lincoln project which would have made available a large source of peaking power so badly needed now. Some 800,000 kilowatts of low-cost power have been denied New England by the willful obstruction of the private power companies. Certainly a regional gov

ernmental planning commission could have prevented this from happening during the heat wave the first week of June.

Boston Edison Co. stated it reduced voltage by 5 percent. The council's executive secretary, Mr. Shea, has prepared a brief staff report giving some of the consequences of the low voltage during this period. This is appendix B to my statement. In his summary he states: "It is apparent that continual low voltage this summer is bound to make expensive 'sauna baths' out of many new office buildings, not only in the Boston area but, also, in the other large cities of the Commonwealth." His report, also, discusses the large number of elevator companies during this period stating that the Boston Edison may be trying to tell the consumers of Boston "Walk-Don't Ride." He also points out that Boston Edison Co. has advised the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority that in the event of a serious power shortage it will have to cut off the subway's power supply. The MBTA uses 70,000 kilowatts. It has only 35,000 kilowatts available through its own power supply; therefore, during a severe power shortage this summer the possibility exists that MBTA may be interrupted. The council has opposed the sale of the MBTA facilities for this very reason. The New England private power companies have said that they have a plan called the "Big 11 Power Loop." Quite bluntly, the "Big 11 Power Loop," touted by the New England private power companies as the answer to this region's high cost and shortage of power, has turned out to be a bad fuse. It is obvious now that the "Big 11 Power Loop" was a roll of the dice, that the private power companies had gambled that their planning was adequate. They have lost this gamble but the consumer is paying the price for their "too little and too late" planning and action. It is the height of folly that the New England States have permitted the private power companies to be in the driver's seat on this question of planning and development of electric power.

I am grateful to this committee for holding this hearing on this matter of electric power and the need for regional approach as a solution because it is only when the public becomes fully aroused on this matter will anything be done in New England along the lines proposed by Senate 2752. Thank you very much. (The material referred to follows:)

APPENDIX A

STATEMENT BY DERMOT P. SHEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE STATE
CONSUMERS' COUNCIL, ON H. 78

"THE BENIGN NEGLECT" OF UTILITY REGULATION

Mr. Chairman, since the Government Regulations Committee is considering so many utility bills today, I think it is appropriate to report on the results of the Commonwealth's historic policy of "benign neglect" toward the regulation of public utilities. In the last legislative session this Committee reported out favorably several excellent utility bills. Regrettably some important measures failed of enactment but this does not detract from this Committee's work. It has done a yeoman's job in attempting to review the regulatory process of the Department of Public Utilities and, as you know, the Council has endeavored to cooperate with this Committee.

Since last year, the State's policy of "benign neglect" has further accentuated the problems of the electrical utilities. The much advertised "Big Eleven Power Loop" program of the utilities to deliver an adequate power supply at

lower cost is still just a deceptive promise. This is a direct result of the State's failure to participate in the power planning needs of the Commonwealth, as the Consumers' Council had previously recommended. This is the result of the failure of the private power companies to accept Vermont Governor Philip Hoff's program for low cost Canadian power. This is a result of not having a State power authority. This is a result of the failure of the private power companies to heed the warnings of the Federal Power Commission. This is the result of an ineffective Department of Public Utilities. As the result of "benign neglect", Massachusetts now faces a chronic power shortage that was foreseen before the inflationary process became so severe. The consequence of the failure of the private power companies to consider the paramount interest of their customers, the consumers of the Commonwealth, has resulted in the strong probability of continued low voltage (which is being fed into the consumers' homes), power brownouts as well as blackouts as a result of a power shortage. Consider the damage being caused by low voltage to the consumers' appliances such as dishwashers, television sets, water pumps, oil burner motors, refrigerators, washing machines, air conditioning units and other appliances that have motors. I requested and have received a report from R. W. Beck and Associates, consulting engineers, on this matter of damage to appliances. In summary, the report states that the consumer will receive much less satisfactory operation of his electrical appliances under low voltage conditions and the appliances will be subject to early replacement because of shortened life. The report, also, states that many industrial facilities or equipment can handle normal variations in power supply voltage but "many of these facilities were not designed to handle large voltage variations."

Mr. Chairman: In the early part of January, 1970, the northeast region almost had another blackout because of power unreliability. This critical situation resulted from several power plants (some in New England) having serious difficulties causing a severe reduction of generating capacity, thus leading to low voltage. I think the public should be continually advised as to these low voltage situations and power outages. For example, Boston Edison cut voltage on February 16 and February 17, 1970. On February 17 New England Gas & Electric Canal plant was down which represented 500,000 kilowatts. Half of the New England Electric system Brayton Point plant representing 300,000 kilowatts was down on the same day. The new Boston plant of the Edison Company was down on February 16. The potentiality of inadequate service to the consumer is most apparent.

I cannot overemphasize to the Committee the bleak outlook of this power situation. You should know there is no agreement yet between the New England private power companies and the municipals and cooperatives to pool their resources. The irony is, if these parties come to an agreement, there is at this time nothing left to pool as New England has no adequate power reserve, nor does the northeast for that matter. Furthermore, the forty Massachusetts municipal light plants worth over one hundred and twenty-five million dollars to the cities and towns concerned are in effect under constant siege by the private utilities who have been seeking to bar any attempt to relieve the power problems of these forty cities and towns by action of this General Court. It well may be that in the end the Commonwealth will be forced to turn to the municipal system in order to develop an adequate and stable power supply for the people of the Commonwealth.

The policy of “benign neglect" also applies to the Consumers' Council. The Consumers' Council is mandated to appear "for and in behalf of the people of the Commonwealth before boards, commissioners, commissions, departments or agencies of the Commonwealth in any hearing or matter affecting the rights of the consuming public" (Acts 1963, Chap. 773). The Council has endeavored to comply with this mandate but without the proper funding, consumer representation by the agency in proceedings before the Department of Public Utilities is virtually impossible. The Council is recording before this Committee that the representation of the consumer interest before the Department of Public Utilities is virtually nil. It is correct that the General Court gave us a special appropriation so that we could represent people of the Commonwealth in the New England Telephone rate case. Currently we have intervened into the $10,000,000 Massachusetts Electric rate case and have requested deficiency item of $20,000 for this purpose. If the Council does not receive this appropriation, its intervention is useless.