Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Governor Licht of Rhode Island has indicated that he may ask the Commission to work with a group of State officials in evaluating a proposed thermal plant at Rome Point on Narragansett Bay.

Other Commission-led Federal-State evaluations have been suggested in siting new thermal plants in eastern Massachusetts and in northern Vermont.

The Commission had indicated that it will assist in these evaluations to the limits of its own staff capacity, and that of State and Federal agencies.

No funds have been specifically appropriated to the Commission, or to member agencies (State or Federal) for these project evaluations.

All work to date has been volunteered-and the amount has been substantial. In response to the second program element, the Commission published in early 1970 a report outlining ways to strengthen State programs. The report, "Laws and Procedures for Power Plant Siting in New England", was approved by the Commission in March. It describes several alternatives available to the States for protecting the public interest in siting decisions. Based upon evaluation of laws and procedures in California, Washington, New York, Vermont and others, the Commission's study identifies ingredients of effective State control:

(1) State Public Utilities Commissions should have the authority to grant or deny construction licenses. At the time the report was drafted, only Vermont among the New England states had this basic element of control.

(2) The relationship of environmental control agencies to construction licensing should be clarified by making the requirements of State environmental control agencies binding upon the Public Utilities Commission in considering construction licenses. This is consistent with national policy providing that issuance of Federal licenses for nuclear plants be conditional on certification that State water quality standards will be observed.

(3) The State Public Utilities Commission should coordinate environmental review processes. The intent here is to streamline the review and permit granting procedures of State agencies, using the Public Utilities Commission as a traffic controller.

The report also urges the State Public Utilities Commissions to develop professional capability for long-range planning and power development. And it suggests that the New England States establish a regional Energy Policy Staff to provide interdisciplinary strength in support of the State Public Utilities Commissions.

The regional Energy Policy Staff proposal underscores the need for systematic regional planning which provides a firm basis to the individual States for evaluating regional energy needs-a necessary complement to industry planning. Because major generation and transmission facilities are integral units of regional systems, individual States are not in a position to choose among sites from regional perspectives.

An Energy Policy Staff responsive to the State Public Utilities Commissions, working closely with the River Basins Commission as specialists in natural resources aspects, with the Federal regulatory agencies, and the industry, should assure that both environmental as well as energy factors are evaluated from regional points of view.

The strengthening of State authorities and procedures as suggested by the Commission should reduce the need for active leadership by this Commission in detailed evaluation of specific sites.

As State programs become more effective, the Commission proposes-as the third element of its program-to organize a systematic long-range planning program. Through this device, State, Federal and regional natural resource agencies can participate effectively in regional power system planning, emphasizing wise use of water and related land resources in selection and comparative evaluation of alternative sites for meeting future power needs.

The Commission presently plans to request that funding for Commission participation in long-range regional power planning be included in the Fiscal Year 1972 budget.

Following are some general conclusions drawn from Commission experience to

date.

First, the electric utility industry is cooperative. The Commission has received wholehearted cooperation from Central Maine Power Company, Northeast Utilities and New Hampshire Public Service Company in our specific site evaluations. We have also received full cooperation from the interim regional planning group of NEPOOL, an acronym covering a number of industry efforts to improve cooperation in the regional interest.

Second, I believe that the individual states have the primary public responsibility for defining the public interest in the siting of power plants and transmission lines. The States have broad Constitutional powers. They have elected officials; they are politically responsible. It seems unlikely to me that we can develop either regional or Federal decision-making bodies more fully responsive to the broad public interest than the States.1

Put another way, I don't thing we can fashion an effective decision-making process which is not built on the vigorous exercise of State responsibility as a foundation.

The States are demonstrating their determination to act responsively. Actions taken by California, Maryland, Washington, and Oregon are illustrative. In New England-in Vermont, through the 1969 act requiring a comprehensive construction permit, and Maine, through the 1970 Environmental Improvement Commission Act-the States are making it clear that they intend to act boldly.

No matter how well equipped the States may be, regional ways to consider both energy requirements and environmental factors are necessary. Assessments of power needs, and decisions on ways of meeting them, are regional. We have suggested that a regional Energy Policy Staff responsive to the State Public Utilities Commissions, and some support for the work of the River Basins Commission, would provide an appropriate counterpoint to the industry's own regional planning effort.

Finally, it seems to me that the granting or denying of licenses can be responsibly exercised by the States, and by the Federal regulatory agencies without an intervening regional authority.

We need, however, to develop improved national energy policy machinery, and to see that energy policy is coordinated with national environmental policy (through the Environmental Quality Council) and broad policies for water and related land use (through the Water Resources Council). We need continued and strengthened technical criteria from the Federal government, supported by research. We need procedures for even-handed consideration of energy needs and environmental factors at the regional level, and at the State level. We should continue to require that State and Federal environmental control standards be met in issuance of State and Federal licenses.

In closing, I want to acknowledge that the patterns of regional cooperation which have developed in this region may be unique. We have in New England effective institutions for regional cooperation-the Governors' Conference, the Regional Commission, the River Basins Commission, and in the electric utility industry-such cooperative ventures as NEPOOL.

Through a consultant, the Regional Commission has undertaken a study of regional energy requirements, alternative ways of meeting these requirements, and environmental considerations affecting the design of an optimum regional power system. The Regional Commission study, when released, will provide more detailed guidelines and criteria which the River Basins Commission, and individual Federal and State agencies, may use in attempting to reconcile future power and environment demands.

With appropriate strengthening, I believe these regional mechanisms, with strong State programs and Federal guidance and regulatory action, can reconcile power and environmental needs in the region. A strong case can be made that any Federal legislation should be sufficiently flexible to capitalize on existing regional institutions.

I appreciate very much the opportunity to comment.
Yours very truly,

FRANK GREGG,
Chairman.

Senator MUSKIE. Our next witness, Mr. Charles Ross, a former Commissioner of the Federal Power Commission, of Shelburne, Vt., has a long record of dedication to the public interests throughout his career. We are delighted to welcome him as a witness this morning.

1 Certainly FPC's exclusive jurisdiction over licensing of hydroelectric projects has not always guaranteed adequate consideration of environmental factors. At the time of the Pelton controversy in Oregon, both the Governor and State Legislature were of the opinion that power needs could be met without loss to salmon and steelhead fisheries threatened by FPC-licensed projects. However, the licenses were approved by a majority of the five commissioners then in office. FPC has, of course, under the leadership of Joseph Swidler, Lee White and John Nassikas, sharply strengthened its concern for environment.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES R. ROSS, FORMER MEMBER OF FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, MEMBER OF THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION, HINESBURG, VT.

Mr. Ross. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure being here. Before I proceed with my formal statement, I'd like to make a few remarks as to some of the testimony I have already heard this morning, and I'd like to apologize to the press and to the public for not having innumerable copies of my statement. I am a oneman operation with a small photocopying machine; about the best I can do on short notice is six or seven copies.

I listened to Senator Kennedy this morning discussing the reliability bill and I would like the record to show that while I was on the Federal Power Commission I supported the reliability bill as introduced by his brother, the late Senator Robert Kennedy. I testified before the Atomic Energy Commission on behalf of the Kennedy bill. I feel that all efforts of this nature should be encouraged.

I would also like to correct a statement by Governor Sargent regarding the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission on powerplant siting. I believe Governor Sargent said that all powerplants require approval of the Federal Power Commission. This is not true. This is a misapprehension of many people including the public. They don't understand that the Federal Power Commission only licenses hydroplants. A fossil-fuel plant does not require certification from any Federal agency as such. Nuclear power does, but not a fossilfuel plant.

Lastly, I'd like to make reference to some testimony by Chairman Feehan of the Maine commission regarding the intertie between Brunswick and United States. I think Governor Curtis should get great credit, because about a year ago he had the difficult job of trying to weigh the public interests as to whether to promote and advance this intertie or whether he might try to throw roadblocks. Governor Curtis was well aware of the critical power situation, he was well aware of the necessity to have this line constructed, and I know as a personal matter he did all that he could do to expedite construction of this line which, in the next year or so, will be a very important factor in providing additional reliability to not only Maine but all of New England as well.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much for those verbal additions to your testimony.

Mr. Ross. Before discussing in any detail the provisions of the bill, I would like to congratulate the Senator for taking the time to hold this hearing in New England on this important subject. As most of you are only too much aware, the country is faced with the unfortunate prospect of living dangerously this summer. Voltage reductions, brownouts, and even load shedding, have for the first time in the history of the majority of the people in the United States become a new household word. It is ironic that the Nation's interest which on Earth Day was directed toward voluntarily reducing demand for power now is turned toward the problem of increasing power production.

There have been charges and countercharges as to who must share

the responsibility for such a sad state of affairs. While there should be no witch hunt, nevertheless, every effort should be taken to assess the reasons why this has happened.

It is not enough to say that the conservationists are the villains. Buckpassing won't do. Fundamentally, the plans of the industry got fouled up. The persons who are paid good money to take into consideration all these contingencies for some reason underestimated the demand for power locally and regionally, took for granted the supply industry's ability to produce workable equipment on schedule and even their own ability to construct plants on time, and, lastly, failed to recognize the growing environmental backlash until it was a crisis. Even regulation, State and Federal, the guardians of the public interest who are supposed to be looking over the shoulders of the industry, must share some of the burden. The performance of the industry, and service is No. 1 on the list, is the public's best gage of regulation's effectiveness. It is true regulation may not have the legislative tools to force changes but regulation does have a public forum by which pressing problems involving the region's or the Nation's security can be aired. Through such procedures accountability can be ascertained and problems anticipated.

However, I must confess that as a private citizen with some experience in regulation it is comforting to know that there is a stick available if the public interest is constantly on the verge of being threatened. S. 2752 is one of these legislative tools which seek to provide a solution. I must say I couldn't agree more with the findings set forth in section 2(a) and the purposes of the act as declared in section 2(b). Of course the real issue is whether the remaining provisions provide the means to fulfill these purposes.

One cannot help but be struck by the tremendous diversity of interests, local, State, and Federal which are described in 4(a). A mere listing of these interests illustrates more than anything else the complexity in providing adequate sites for generating stations and land for transmission rights-of-way. In every case, the agency or interest involved has a vital stake in the final decision. What all of us are seeking to do in the long run is to set forth all reasonable alternatives, provide the public as well as the decisionmakers with reliable, scientific, factual data by which the present and future consequences of each alternative may be weighed and then provided an expeditious procedure by which the national interest can be achieved after taking into due consideration local, State, and regional interests.

However, attractive as it is to let local interests dictate the results or veto any decision, we must, nevertheless, be careful not to sacrifice. the Nation's future for the selfish and sometimes irrational fears of a small but vocal minority. The views, whether the majority's or a small minority, must be tested by reason and good judgment based upon sound and accurate facts. Experience may tell us that the traditional adversary process upon which we have relied to test the validity. of positions of competing interests may need modification when it comes to weighing the long-term consequences of technological developments. Experience has already taught us that we can't afford to make many more mistakes.

With all of this in mind, it seems to me that S. 2752, laudable as

its aims are, unfortunately does not provide a workable solution. As I understand the bill, other than establishing standards for adequacy or reliability of power, it simply requires some agency, and I don't believe the designation should be left to the President, to develop criteria by which procedures can be established so that one agency can be assured that the applicant has complied with the many provisions of the many agencies. There is nothing said about what is done if there is a conflict between the standards as established by the various groups. For example, what happens if the reliability of the power supply for New England and New York were to require a plant on or near Lake Champlain and all local communities sought to zone it out? Can a local community do with zoning what it can't do by taxation? I don't think so.

If I am mistaken and the agency has the clear right to override the standards as described in section 5(a) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, then it ought to say so, though I would not necessarily agree this is the best solution. If I am right, then the bill itself is amended so as to establish the procedure under which it can bring the matter to a head. For example, the agency could be required to find that a proposed site or right-ofway is required to insure an adequate and reliable power supply and that there is no other reasonably alternative means of achieving same.

The difficulty of arriving at a reasonable solution is apparent from a study of the very fine document on siting produced by the New England River Basins Commission. Reviewing their recommendations in light of recent developments and weighing again the FederalState issue as well as recourse versus power issue, I must confess that my ultimate but reluctant advice is to rely upon one Federal agency for the final decision, without the necessity of securing multiple approvals from a variety of local, State, and other Federal agencies.

If I can digress for a moment, I think the Federal Government or government itself ought to be able to provide one-stop shopping as well as private industry does to the housewife when she goes out for her weekly shopping trip.

The Federal agency should have the authority to call upon, provided an offer of appropriate compensation is made, the appropriate resource officials of any State or any regulator for advice and counsel and the record must show that every reasonable effort was made to secure same. In other words, mandatorily forcing cooperation. Furthermore, I would also require the Governor of each State involved to appoint a consumers counsel to represent the public at large in any proceeding under this act. Lastly, to insure that a Federal agency does not go off its rocker completely, I would grant a majority of the Governors of the States involved the right to veto any license subject to the right of the President to override their veto when the Nation's security might be at stake.

а

Senator MUSKIE. Might I interrupt at this point, Mr. Ross?
Mr. Ross. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. To say two or three things. First, I agree with you that section 5 is unclear on this point.

Mr. Ross. I heard your colloquy with Governor Curtis.

Senator MUSKIE. It is unclear, and we are not sure as yet how that ambiguity ought to be resolved. One purpose of the hearings, of course,

« ÎnapoiContinuă »