consumer and maximum damage to the landscape. It would seem only logical and sensible to establish a grid of corridors where space for these utilities can be provided both below and above ground.

This should even result in such great savings that they could be fenced, and constructed in such a way that electric transmission lines would be placed underground, or at least at far lower elevations where minimal esthetic damage would be done and maximum reliability guaranteed.

The fact that the legislation before us is under consideration is proof enough that we face a power crisis. It is a double-pronged crisis. We face on one hand the threat from power companies that a "brownout” is at hand and a "blackout" is coming. The power companies would place the blame on the public, although the truth is that power companies have been such bad neighbors in the past that no one welcomes them.

If power companies are uneasy about future developments at the moment, it largely is because they are unaccustomed to dealing with the public. They always have had the right of eminent domainplacing them among the few private-profit enterprises which have this right that historically has belonged only to the crown. They have exercised that right, often in an unpopular framework. Even the legislation before us guarantees them a continuation of this power.

We claim virtually no experience and little or no expertise in drafting legislation. This bill seems like a forward step over our present situation in improving the processes of orderly choice. But, by the same token, it has a glaring omission: It fails to ask or provide for the very fundamental question of whether a proposed generating plant is necessary do we really need it; indeed, can we afford it environmentally? To date, all considerations have been slanted toward where a plant should be built. While we agree that where is very important, we must urge that consideration be given to the question of whether indeed each new proposed plant is necessary. Otherwise, this bill at best merely reverses the order of destruction within the environment. We will not have halted deterioration, but merely rescheduled it so that areas that seem least desirable are destroyed first and areas of high environmental value are destroyed last. But, if one gives a moment's consideration to this proposed process, he will recognize that in the end all is lost-unless we now begin the process of severely questioning the absolute necessity of each proposed new plant, and designating now a future limit on power production and consumption beyond which we will not go unless some dramatic new technological breakthrough not now in sight, is forthcoming.

One last point: No one is steering. There is no overall authority or responsibility for long-term multidisciplinary planning and the implementation of those plans. For example, the siting of powerplants is intimately concerned with water-and water involves quality, supply, pollution control, et cetera. As our civilization becomes more crowded and more complex, the inevitable byproduct must be the giving up by the individual, of increasing numbers of our so-called rights to home rule and the parochial point of view. As much as I hate to see it personally, and as much as I acknowledge that this is a very grave loss indeed, I see no other alternative. At the present rate of

adversary proceedings and uncoordinated jockeying for best personal, and usually selfish, advantage, only chaos can result in the long term. I submit that it is very close to being upon us, if it has not already arrived.

As I have sat here this morning, Senator, listening to the other speakers, they constantly repeated this need to double power supply-of doubling power production to meet demand, yet also to protect the environment. I think we've got to face up to this. In the long run the two objectives are mutually exclusive. We cannot reconcile doubling power and protecting the environment.

Senator MUSKIE. Mr. Marshall, I think it might be helpful if you gave us your statement and then we could give you both questions. STATEMENT OF ROGER MARSHALL, CHAIRMAN, NEW ENGLAND CHAPTER, SIERRA CLUB

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Roger Marshall and I am chairman rather than executive director of the New England chapter of the Sierra Club. I suppose the main difference is that I am a volunteer rather than an employee.

The New England chapter has approximately 2,600 members living in the States of Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island. As you are aware, the Sierra Club is a national conservation organization with about 100,000 members in the United States, who are dedicated, to preserving our environment as well as the protection of our Nation's scenic and natural resources. Unless our national policy is focused upon the prevention of further degradation of our ecosystem, our survival is in grave danger.

We are pleased to have the opportunity to offer our comments on S. 2752, a bill "to promote intergovernmental cooperation in the control of site selection and construction of bulk power facilities for environmental and coordination purposes," and we commend Senator Muskie for developing legislation which can give the possibility of formulating regulations which are urgently needed to require that environmental factors are considered in the planning and development of power production and transmission facilities.

INTRODUCTION

The New England region is one of the most populated and industrialized areas in the Nation. There are present plans, at varying degrees of completion, for several nuclear and pumped storage generation facilities, as well as the proposed Dickey-Lincoln School project, which would inundate thousands of acres of irreplacable timber and wildlife producing area in a region which desperately needs open space, natural watershed protection, oxygen production, and recreation space, in contrast with the highly developed areas in much of the rest of New England.

The future of our rivers and estuarine areas is in grave danger. With the filling of wetlands and the dumping of polluted effluents into the coastal areas, we are rapidly destroying our marine resources. The several nuclear plants under construction and in the planning process would depend upon the estuarine waters for cooling purposes.

We are faced with further peril from oil spills due to improper handling of petroleum shipments as well as the obvious dangers of fog and other adverse factors of the ocean on the proposed supertankers planned for Machiasport and Portland, Maine. Much of this imported oil would be used for the generation of power.

Little is actually known about the effects of heat, radiation, and other potential pollutants on the environment. Study, research, and evaluation of power needs and generating potential to formulate a national policy on the production of power is of prime necessity. Similarly, there is the problem of how power is transmitted from production area to user. The great swaths required for the conventional overhead powerlines, cutting across the shortest distance between two points, without due regard for the best and highest use of land and the environmental qualities of our scenic and natural heritage, requires more than just the initiative of the local power industry to take it for what is thought to be the public good, without a system of checks and balances to insure that the public is protected to the fullest extent possible.

We believe that S. 2752 goes a long way toward providing for the necessary research and safeguards to insure national guidelines which are consistent with environmental as well as economic criteria for the production and transmission of power.

DISCUSSION OF THE BILL

Consistent with developing a balance between the development of power sources and other industrial needs of man with the protection of the natural environment in a finite ecological sense, we suggest the following considerations (specific amendments to the bill are proposed in app. A to my statement).

As written, the priorities expressed in section 2(a), paragraphs (4) and (5) are debatable. We do not believe that just because power is available it should be wasted, or that advertising should be necessary by the power industry to stimulate greater and perhaps unnecessary consumption of energy which will be eventually released into the environment as well as contribute to the depletion of finite fuel

resources.

Similarly, the rate structures should bear recognition of the unrenewable aspects of power production (whether from the consumption of fuel energy or the loss of otherwise useable land areas required for hydroelectric impoundments). The concept of low-cost electrical supplies should be questioned with respect to actual output, thermal efficiency, or other regressive formulae rather than the present system of progressive rates giving a premium to the larger energy

users.

Projected energy demands should be capable of withstanding sufficient substantiation with due opportunity for weighing the environmental impact derived therefrom.

The "financial assistance" mentioned in section 2(a) (8) should be used to provide for environmental protection as a result of the studies provided for in the act. Any savings to the power industry, derived from the coordinated aspects and information sharing, should be eventually passed on in part to the consumer.

The purposes of the act, as described in section 2(b) (3) should be strengthened so that the necessary scientific studies are undertaken to arrive at more reliable projections of power needs, new methods for power generation and transmission, and alternate methods for meeting future power demands consistent with the public safety.

Section 3(2) leaves the question of which Federal agency will carry out the provisions of the act. In view of the far-reaching environmental impact of power generation and consumption, we suggest that the designated agency be the one created by the "Environmental Quality Act."

Section 4(b) leaves open the question of how the proposed regional boards and advisory councils can best protect the environment and the power industry without undue political influence. The possibility of a region consisting of a single State or portion thereof exists, however the act does not allow for this contingency nor does it insist that each regional board consist of at least three members.

The attempt to limit conflicts of interest on the regional boards is admirable, however as written, the system is a bit impractical if representatives of large industries depending greatly upon power in their production processes are not similarly excluded. Unless it is the intent to limit the board membership to politicians and housewives, there should be a way to insure that its makeup includes the knowledge and expertise of both environmental and power interests. Perhaps the advisory council is the opportunity to create a disinterested body, however the language should be strengthened to insure that vested environmental interests are appointed and that they will bear adequate weight in the deliberations and decisions. Section 4 (c), line 22 should perhaps better define "the public" as "organizations and individuals interested in, but not limited to, the environment."

Section 4(c) should also be strengthened to facilitate the acquisition of information obtained from other sources. The act should provide the necessary tools for insuring that the agency and the regional boards make all relevant studies and reports available for study and comment by the interested public as well as the power industry, and recourse in the Federal courts should be provided, where necessary, to obtain such information.

The several sections of the act do not adequately provide for the need for building up a complete record by the process of open public hearings at each step in the licensing process. These hearings should provide for full disclosure of relevant information and evidence, along with completed studies of alternate sources and methods for meeting power demands and transmission systems, and a full discussion of environmental costs and losses as well as other benefits.

Although section 8(b) states that facilities shall not be constructed or altered without a license from the agency, there are no penalties provided for.

The concept of granting the power of eminent domain in section 9 leaves the question open with respect to what persons are subject to having their land taken for the purposes of this act. Surely any Federal- and State-owned lands which are set aside by legislation for specific purposes should be exempt from eminent domain proceedings: It is also unclear in section 9 if the power of eminent domain is

46-966 0-71-pt. 2- -10

reserved only for EHV facilities and steamplants, or if it is the intent of the act to use this tool for all bulk power producing and transmission facilities.

Finally, it only seems proper that, to balance the power vested in the agency, there should be suitable recourse in the courts, for any persons who might be aggrieved by the issuance of licensing for power facilities which do not adequately insure the environmental protection conceived of by this act.

In conclusion, the Sierra Club's New England Chapter is thankful for the opportunity to have discussed some of the ways by which this bill can be strengthened, and we will be pleased to be of further help to the committee as it completes its formulation of this legislation, which is necessary to guarantee the protection of environmental values while providing for the planning and construction needs of power producing and transmission facilities. Thank you.

(The information referred to follows:)

APPENDIX A

1. Section 2.(a)(3), page 2, line 11, to read: "ning and with due regard and protection for scenic, historic, and recrea-"

2. Section 2. (a) (4), page 2, lines 14-16, to read: "(4) availability of an adequate and reliable supply of electricity is essential to national security, economic growth, and individual well-being;"

3. Section 2. (a) (5), page 2, lines 17-19, to read: “(5) expansion of bulk power facilities, consistant with reduction of their environmental impact, is required to meet substantiatable projected demands for electricity in the United States;" 4. Section 2.(a) (7), page 2, line 24, to read: "(7) all electric utilities and the public must have direct access to"

5. Section 2. (a) (8), page 3, line 8, to read: "Federal leadership and financial assistance to stimulate inter-"

6. Section 2. (b) (2), page 3, lines 18-19 to read: "(2) preserve and enhance the environment by insisting that the siting and construction of bulk power" 7. Section 2.(b)(2), page 3, line 23, to read: "other scenic and natural resources; and "

8. Section 2.(b) (3), page 4, lines 3-4, to read: "tricity for the economic and esthetic benefit as well as the safety of all power users, and to conduct the necessary scientific and economic studies to find methods for determining power needs, and methods of generation and transmission which will have the least damaging impact upon the environment."

9. Section 4. (c), page 7, lines 4-9, to read: "quested by the regional boards and may obtain any existing, relevent reports and studies by governmental, industrial or private agencies by action in Federal Court, where necessary. Any studies, reports or other information provided to the regional board by such advisory councils, including information obtained by boards and their advisory councils in other regions, shall be made available to the public, and any meetings of the board and advisory council shall be duly announced and open to the public with reasonable opportunity for presentation of views and testimony by any person interested in the purposes of this Act by means of the public hearing process. The regional coun-"

10. Section 5. (a) (6), page 8, line 24, to read: "historic and other sites, natural areas, wilderness protection, and esthetic values ;"

11. Section 5. (a), page 9, line 8, to read: "facilities, including the evaluation of alternate land use values."

12. Section 5. (b), page 9, lines 11-12, to read: "regional board shall prescribe, after adequate public notice and opportunity for written and oral comment at an open public hearing, and in consultation with"

13. Section 6. (a), page 10, line 11, to read: "standards and substantiating documentation and any dissenting views to the agency, which"

14. Section 6.(a), page 10, lines 15-17, to read: "Register. The agency shall hold july advertised public hearings, at least one of which to be held within the