Reverend ENGSTROM. Sir, we will do something about that. [Laughter.]

Senator METCALF. I hope the representative from Northern States is around.

I am from a State that is so interested in control of the environment that we do not even want Chet Huntley out there with a ski resort. Reverend ENGSTROM. Senator, I have been reading about the problem you had at Garrison some years ago. That was a fantastic story.

Senator METCALF. The growth of civilization has been marked by the insatiable demands for power. They increase all the time. And, you know, for a while we thought that, well, the atomic energy system would eliminate all the needs for coal and hydroelectric power, and so forth, but we are using every source of power.

Now, you say that we have to change some of our standards. Would you put quotas on the use of power and provide that we could not have electric air-conditioning units, things of that sort?

Reverend ENGSTROM. Yes, I would, Senator. I feel that our population is growing to such an extent, and along with it the problems that accompany a large nation, that we are going to have to limit ourselves, to use some self-discipline as a nation and as regions and as States. Otherwise, we are going to end up like a bunch of lemmings.

Senator METCALF. You talked about 25 percent waste. What would you consider a waste of electricity, other than excess lights in the White House?

Reverend ENGSTROM. I would think that turning off unnecessary lights would be a large part of it, but I think it also includes the use of electricity for other nonessential purposes.

Senator METCALF. I was wondering what some examples would be. Reverend ENGSTROM. Electric knives.

Senator METCALF. You mean the gadgets like electric knives and toothbrushes?

Reverend ENGSTROM. Yes.

Senator METCALF. Of course, many of those are battery driven. So that might be a change. But you are referring to all these electric gadgets.

Reverend ENGSTROM. I am referring to our whole tendency in this country toward ease and absence of labor.

Senator METCALF. Do you know whether or not the Northern States Power Co. advertises in the newspapers?

Reverend ENGSTROM. Yes, Senator. I know all too well. Every time. I turn on the television set I see a beautiful scene and hear soft music and well-constructed sentences urging the greater use of electricity. It is in the newspapers, it is on television, it is on the radio.

Senator METCALF. At the same time there is a shortage of power.
Reverend ENGSTROM. Yes, sir.

Senator METCALF. So that they are making the consumer pay for advertising to create a greater shortage.

Reverend ENGSTROM. Right. We feel if they used their public relations money for pollution control devices that they would automatically improve their public relations.

Senator METCALF. For research and development
Reverend ENGSTROM. Yes.

Senator METCALF (continuing). Of pollution control systems instead of advertising money for creating greater pollution. Well, I agree with you there.

Perhaps we should move into some sort of a system where we charge higher rates for use of power for the gadgets you are talking about and trivial uses than for basic uses. Do you think that would

Reverend ENGSTROM. I would concur wholeheartedly with that.

Senator METCALF. Staff has just said what about electric blankets in cold Minnesota winters?

Reverend ENGSTROM. Not only are we independent, but we are reasonably hardy.

Senator METCALF. I am glad he did not say anything about the Montana winters. I have just come back and left in a snowstorm.

Thank you very much for a most helpful statement. We hope to continue to hear from you and people such as you represent on the control of the environment because it is one of the major problems in the country today.

Reverend ENGSTROM. Thank you, Senator.

I would like to leave these folders of exhibits for incorporation into the record and may I add that there are two or three that have come to mind just this morning as a result of earlier testimony. I would like to have the privilege of sending them to Mr. Webber for inclusion in the record.

Senator METCALF. If you will send them to Mr. Webber, the staff will make arrangements for proper editing and inclusion at the proper point.

Reverend ENGSTROM. Thank you very much.

Senator METCALF. Mr. Zimmermann? Our next witness is Prof. William Zimmermann, representing the Minnesota Committee for Environmental Information.

Professor Zimmermann, we are delighted to have you before the committee. You have a prepared statement, so just go ahead.

STATEMENT OF PROF. WILLIAM ZIMMERMAN, REPRESENTING THE MINNESOTA COMMITTEE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

Mr. ZIMMERMANN. Thank you; I am glad to be here.

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to offer comments on the bill, S. 2752, which is before you. My name is William Zimmermann, Jr., and I am professor of physics at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. I am appearing today as a member of the board of directors of the Minnesota Committee for Environmental Information (MCEI) which has recently been actively interested in affairs concerning the siting and development of large electric powerplants. MCEI is a nonprofit organization, devoted to providing scientific information on environmental matters of social and political concern and to promoting public awareness about such matters. It is affiliated with the national Committee for Environmental Information and the Scientists' Institute for Public Information.

I am sorry that Dr. Dean E. Abrahamson, who was originally invited to appear on behalf of MCEI cannot be here today, due to a previous engagement. However, the remarks that I am about to present

have been prepared in cooperation with Dr. Abrahamson, who is associate professor of anatomy and laboratory medicine at the University of Minnesota and also a board member of MCEI. The bill before you today is concerned with the siting and construction of large electric generating plants and transmission facilities. I would like to begin my remarks this morning by presenting six general principles that seem of primary importance to us in connection with public control over the siting and construction of such facilities. Later on I will try to examine the proposed legislation in the light of these principles and then, finally, I will talk a little bit about the Minnesota situation.

1. In the procedure for the licensing of bulk power facilities it is imperative to provide for the consideration of all aspects of a proposed power facility by a single organization. For electric generating plants the list of aspects would include the type of fuel, land use, and development at the site with the possibility of multipurpose use in mind, the relation of the plant to industrial and other development near the site, the preservation of recreational and historic values of the land, water use, the transportation of fuel to the site and electric power from the site, the disposal of wastes, potential air and water pollution, the adequacy and reliability of the power supply, public health and safety, and the esthetic impact of the plant. As will be emphasized later, careful consideration should, in addition, be given to the need for the plant and its relation to present and future probable bulk power facilities in the same region. Attention should also be paid to the environmental impact of the mining and subsequent phases of the fuel cycle. It is obvious that both fossil-fueled and nuclear-fueled generating plants should be included in the overall licensing process. Not only is the impact of both types of plant large, but, in addition, a careful weighing of which type of plant is better suited for a given situation should be part of the licensing procedure.

Today, licensing procedures for bulk power facilities are fragmented and incomplete. Because in many cases the various licenses required for the construction of a powerplant are restricted in scope, the public has often had no appropriate opportunity to register in a formal and effective way its opposition to a plant or to some of its features at a time when the opposition could serve a constructive purpose for the plant in question. Moreover, the licensing procedure has generally contained no review of the need for the plant or of the overall environmental impact to be expected from its construction. As a result, the public has generally had insufficient opportunity to demand that some of the most important questions receive consideration.

These points are illustrated so well by some remarks of Mr. Jess W. Malcolm in earlier testimony before this subcommittee concerning the nuclear generating plant being constructed at Calvert Cliffs in Maryland that I would like to repeat them:

In short, the decision to permit a nuclear power plant to operate on Chesapeake Bay is being made as (a) series of minor decision (s), suggesting de facto approval of the facility at every step of the way. All of these steps were taken when, in fact, the basic question of whether a nuclear power plant that would use Chesapeake Bay waters should be constructed at Calvert Cliffs was never even asked.

The situation described here is typical of the situation that has existed in my home State of Minnesota and, I am sure, in many other parts of the Nation.

Thus, in summary, we believe that not only must there be coordination of existing licensing procedures, with provision that the licenses be obtained before construction begins, but also the licensing process must be extended so that all the important aspects of a power facility are faced.

2. The licensing of bulk power facilities should include a careful assessment of the need for the electric power. Such an assessment is clearly necessary for assuring that projected demands are met adequately and reliably. However, I have in mind what seems to me a more important consideration from a long-range point of view. Given the technology of the present and, I think it is safe to say, of the foreseeable future, the present exponential growth of electric power production with roughly a 10-year doubling time simply cannot continue for many more decades. There exist fundamental limits to the growth which include the space available for powerplants and transmission facilities, the ability of our environment to dissipate the waste heat, and its ability to assimilate various chemical and radioactive wastes. The problem of growth must be faced if we are to achieve and maintain a habitable and healthy world in which to live. At present the electric utilities are building to meet projections of a demand whose growth has been generally accepted without question and which the utilities themselves have been making efforts to increase. In view of this situation and of the burden that each new large electric power facility places on the environment, it seems essential that careful consideration be given to the need for the facility.

3. The siting and construction of bulk power facilities should involve public planning and licensing with heavy emphasis on protection of the environment. For the purpose of emphasis, please allow me to repeat some of the considerations already mentioned above. Environmental considerations should include wise land use, minimization of pollution, conservation of nonrenewable resources, and preservation of public health and safety. In the case of electric generating plants, consideration should not be limited to the plant itself but should extend to the source, processing, and delivery of fuel, and should include the ultimate processing and disposal of wastes, the latter being of particular concern in the case of nuclear plants. In all of these considerations emphasis should be placed on the preservation of future options.

4. The siting and construction of bulk power facilities should involve a planning and licensing process which includes means for all parties with interests at stake to participate and be heard. Such parties include the utilities themselves, governmental agencies at all levels, private groups concerned with various aspects of environmental protection, and concerned members of the public. The number of interested parties is already a large one because the impact of the construction of modern power facilities is so great. The involvement of all interested parties at the planning and licensing stage seems essential if adequate environmental protection is to result and if the delays associated with opposition to particular facilities are to be avoided. Procedures for the presentation of alternative schemes by technically qualified personnel should also be provided, in order to assure that adequate technical consideration and weight is given to schemes which differ from those proposed by the utility.

5. The siting and construction of bulk power facilities should involve long-range planning under public scrutiny covering a time span of at least one or two decades. Only with such long-range planning can the public hope to be assured of wise choice for the location and type of power facilities and to gain a meaningful impression of the economic and environmental impact of the facilities before they are built. Further, such planning seems essential if both the public and the electric utilities are to be protected against the delays in construction which stem from insufficient opportunity for the public to appreciate the intentions of the utilities to build facilities and from insufficient opportunities for conflict over the siting and construction of such facilities to be resolved.

6. The siting and construction of bulk power facilities should be considered on a regional and possibly national scale. The need for planning and licensing on a regional basis is already clearly apparent. For example, the need is clear when several States share a lake or river along whose shores powerplants are to be located and whose water is to be subject to potential thermal and other pollution from these plants. Regional planning is also called for in situations where the possibility exists that the best place to generate the electricity is at some distance from the place where it is needed.

Regional planning is in fact already practiced by the electric utilities through their regional organizations in the buying and selling of power between systems, with certain economic and reliability advantages. The possibility of the transmission of power over long-distance interties suggests the need for planning on a national scale as well.

One of the key ideas running through the principles which I have just presented is planning. In view of the current demand for electrical power and its rapid rate of growth, the accompanying burdens that the generation and transmission of this power place on the environment, the consumption of nonrenewable energy resources involved, and the increasing amount of interconnection between various parts of the Nation's electric power system, the conclusion that public planning on a broad basis must be instituted seems inescapable.

Now having outlined these general principles in regard to the planning and licensing of bulk power facilities, I would like to turn to a consideration of S. 2752. This bill attempts to provide for some of the needs that we believe exist in the current situation, and we are very sympathetic with its purposes. However, in our estimation there are important shortcomings in the bill, and I should like to discuss them briefly.

By establishing regional boards affiliated with a Federal agency, for the purpose of licensing all bulk electric power facilities, the bill takes a welcome step in the direction of coordinating a process which today, as I commented earlier, is generally fragmented. In accord with earlier comments, we are pleased to note the bill's inclusion of both fossil-fueled and nuclear-fueled generating plants within its scope. However, a major shortcoming we find in the present bill is that in setting licensing procedures and in carrying them out, the regional board and the designated Federal agency are not adequately empowered to consider features of the facility in question which are not already covered by existing regulations and laws. Despite the breadth