in relation to population centers. The statement went on further to raise a question as to why the provisions of 10CFR 100.11(a)(3) shouldn't be read as requiring the siting of nuclear reactors even further away from population centers such as the Twin City metropolitan area. Mr. Vassallo would you please comment? Mr. VASSALLO.-Part 100 is the Commission's regulation on reactor site criteria. First, I would like to note, that the provisions of 10CFR 100.11 (a)(3), which deals with establishing population center distances is dependent on subsections (a)(2) of 10CFR 100.11. Subsection 100.11(a)(2) deals with establishing low population zones.

As discussed in the AEC regulatory staff's Safety Evaluation, the low population zone distance is one mile which meets the guidelines of 10CFR 100.11 (a) (2) as shown on page 44 of the Safety Evaluation. Since the low population zone distance satisfies the provisions of 10CFR 100.11 (a) (2), this distance is used directly to determine the population center distance in accordance with 10 CFR 100.11 (a) (3), which states, "A population center distance of at least one and one-third times the distance from the reactor to the outer boundary of the low population zone. In applying this guide, due consideration should be given to the population distribution within the population center. Where very large cities are involved, a greater distance may be necessary because of total integrated population dose consideration." This means that for the Monticello site the required population center distance would have to be at least one and one-third miles from the reactor. As defined in 10 CFR 100.3, "Population center distance means the distance from the reactor to the nearest boundary of a densely populated center containing more than about 25,000 residents." There is no such population center one and one-third miles from the reactor. St. Cloud with a population of approximately 33,000 is 22 miles from the site. The distance of the Twin City metropolitan area is approximately 30 miles from the site, and meets the requirements of 10 CFR 100.11 (a) (3).

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH E. KARTH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FIRST DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Electricity has become the superior form of energy and has become vital to our economic and social lives. Without electricity the modern factory could not exist. For lighting and small appliances electricity is more convenient, it is safe, odorless and less costly than other possible substitutes. All of us tacitly assume more and more electricity will be used in homes, in commerce, in industry. We comfortably expect that as each new all electric home is connected to the distribution lines, that as each new office plugs in its new computer, that each new machine tool on the production line will have the electricity it needs. Yet, we are reluctant to admit that the sheer size and the literal necessity for the output of the electricity industry has invested the generation, transmission and distribution of this preferable form of energy with a public importance. That importance demands close attention to the industry so that those who depend upon electricity will be assured of an adequate, reliable and economic supply from plants and transmission lines that do not unacceptably alter the environment of air and water.

Obviously this is no simple matter, nor is there universal agreement as to how the public should be so assured and who has the responsibility for articulating the public's interest. S. 2752 addresses part of these problems.

One genius of the American people is innovation in administration. Today, as I explain my reasons for supporting S. 2752, I would highlight a special need for public and private administration capable of coordinating many, and often conflicting, social energies so that they operate as a unit. The energies I speak of are the managerial and technical talents of the utilities that provide the electrical lifeblood of our society and our economy.

I submit that the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity by our electric industry under the watchful eye of the government demands as much invention and innovation in administration as does the perfection and adoption of new technologies such as magnetohydrodynamic generation of electricity, nuclear breeder reactors, cryogenic transmission lines, and harnessing the controlled thermonuclear reaction. S. 2752 prescribes some necessary pragmatic innovations for our electricity industry in its publicly, cooperatively and privately owned segments. Those innovations are necessary in the public interest because electricity has literally become a vital commodity. Moreover, they can help preserve the competition and diversity of our electricity industries as an alternative to creation of

TABLE 1.-SOME VITAL STATISTICS ABOUT CONNECTICUT, NEW ENGLAND, AND THE UNITED STATES

Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1969 Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969. high monolithic regional companies with enormous, ungoverned economic and political power.

Table I presents some statistical evidence of the importance of electrical power supplies in Connecticut, New England and the Nation, drawn from the Statistical Abstract of the United States for 1969. Imagine what would happen to manufacturers, to employment, to retail trade, to wholesale trade were electricity to suddenly become scarce. The cascading unemployment that heat-using industries in Cleveland are experiencing because of short supplies of natural gas would be compounded many times by a comparable shortage of electrical energy.

The price of this vital commodity obviously is important to the future of New England. Yet, we find our six states have the dubious distinction of high cost

power.

According to recent information from the Federal Power Commission, for residential service of 1,000 kilowatt hours per month in January 1969, the average bill throughout the country was $18.03, for Connecticut, it was $19.45. For commercial service of 40 kilowatts and 10,000 kilowatt hour usage, the average bill was $236, for Connecticut, it was $257. For industrial service with 1,000 kilowatt supply and 200,000 kilowatt hour usage, the average was $3,436, for Connecticut, it was $3,692. Generally, the only States with higher bills than Connecticut were Massachusetts and Vermont, Hawaii and Alaska.

SENATOR MUSKIE AND THE NEED FOR S. 2752

Senator Muskie and his Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations already have built up a comprehensive record of hearings in support of S. 2752. His statement of July 31, 1969, when he introduced this bill deserves close attention by all concerned. What I should like to do in my statement is to illuminate some aspects of this planning and coordination problem. Before doing that, it is worth considering some facts and forecasts about the electricity industry as a whole and in New England, and about possible "brown outs."

THE U.S. ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY

Since S. 2752 would directly affect decisions as to where power plants and transmission lines should be located and how they should be built to assure reliable service, I found it useful to briefly summarize the dominant characteristics of the Nation's electricity industry.

According to the Federal Power Commission, and as indicated in Table II the projected electric energy requirements will increase from 1.53 trillion Kwh in 1970 to 5.92 trillion Kilowatt-hours (Kwh) in 1990. Capacity will grow from 344,000 megawatts (MW) in 1970 to 1,260,000 MW in 1990. From the combined standpoint of adequate and reliable service and also technology assessment, it is interesting to note that the FPC expects nuclear generation will grow from an approximate 5% of total energy in 1970 to 51.8% in 1990. There are some major assumptions in this estimate that I hope will be explored in another time and place.

The electric power industry is one in which productivity improvements have far outpaced the economy as a whole. Technological innovations in generation and transmission have reflected ever-increasing size of new generating units and substantial increases in transmission voltages. Undoubtedly, these technological innovations have accelerated interconnection and coordination among various systems to obtain greater economy as well as reliability. Bigger power plants have resulted in relatively lower unit costs of operation. Whether they have equally contributed to greater dependability remains an open question for me. Nonetheless, the dramatic increase in inter-utility coordination during the 1960's appears motivated by opportunities for economies of scale.

One typical, and by now commonplace, indicator of the growth of electric power requirements is the doubling time of about ten years. Another indication of the rapid growth in electric power requirements is the trend in per capita consumption of electric power which increased from 1380 Kwh in 1940 to 4716 Kwh in 1960 and is projected to be 7950 Kwh in 1970. The Federal Power Commission projects a per capita use of 13,700 Kwh by 1980 and 22,200 Kwh by 1990.

To provide this electricity, the industry has been moving to larger scale generating units as well as higher transmission voltages. Currently, there are on order generating units of 1300 megawatts and in operation transmission lines of 765 kilovolts (Kv). Just five years ago the maximum size generating unit was 1,000 megawatts and the maximum transmission voltages of 500 Kv. The well known report of the Energy Policy Staff of the President's Office of Science and Technology forecasts that in the next 20 years, the new capacity needed will require construction of 250 huge power plants in the range of 2,000 to 3,000 megawatts each. The OST foresees a capital investment of $300 to $400 million per plant, aggregating to $80 billion for new power plants alone. To this must be added the costs of transmission, distribution lines, the capital costs of opening new oil, coal, gas supplies. The capital for pipelines, tank cars, tankers, and, for that matter, the investment in the equipment that will use all this electricity, must also be taken into account.

For a moment let us consider again this doubling of electrical generation every ten years, for it is one salient reason for S. 2752.

Many writers on electricity begin their papers with the fact that the electricity industry doubles every decade. This doubling of electric power every decade could readily be accommodated in the past when the industry was a small fraction of its present size. But today the industry to be doubled already represents an investment of $100 billion. Some writers rather blithely speak of coal fired power stations

with an output of 3,000 megawatts without any real appreciation that each such huge station requires about 1,000 acres of land, 7 million tons of coal per year and $450 million of plant and equipment. To fuel such plants means opening new coal mines, purchasing new coal cars, and building a huge new plant and equipment. It means acquiring sites and rights-of-way for transmission lines and transformers and other equipment. It is a gigantic undertaking on the present scale of the industry. And failure to obtain sites can paralyze the whole process.

To summarize, Government experts anticipate generation to grow from 1.43 trillion Kwh produced by utilities and industrial plants in 1968 to 3.11 trillion Kwh in 1980 and 5.92 trillion Kwh in 1990. This almost fourfold increase in projected energy generation will require a growth in installed capacity from the 291,058 megawatts of capacity in 1968 to 1,260,000 megawatts in 1990.

With regard to nuclear capacity, at the end of 1969 there were in operation 16 plants with approximately 4300 megawatts of capacity and another 38,000 megawatts were under construction. In addition, 38,000 megawatts of reactor capacity was on order. Most of the nuclear capacity was in units of 500 to 1175 megawatts. This capacity comprises 80 nuclear power reactors in 58 plants that were on order for commercial operation during 1969 through 1977, or in preliminary or test operation, or under actual construction. These staggering plant requirements have profound implications not only with regard to the reliable supply of electricity, their capital and operating costs and their environmental effects, but also for the future organization of the industry, possible new economic concentration in the industry, and the rates paid by the consumers.

ELECTRICITY FOR NEW ENGLAND

Questions of siting and right of way for electrical facilities, their reliability and interconnection are inextricably linked to the present and future situation for supply and demand for electricity in New England. For this reason, I have examined with interest the report to the Federal Power Commission by the Northeast Regional Advisory Committee in December 1968. This advisory committee, representing private and public utilities alike, forecast the supply situation for the years 1970, 1980 and 1990 for the eleven states north of the District of Columbia.

Peak load forecasts.-Table III shows the 1970 to 1980 peak load forecasts and capacity requirements reported by the NERC for the six New England States in comparison with the total for the Northeast. New England expects an almost constant annual increase in peak load of approximately 6.6 percent from 1970 to 1990, resulting in a forecast peak load value in 1990 that is approximately 3.5 times that for 1970.

Generation.-Table IV shows NERC estimates for the generation of electricity by type of primary energy source. It reflects problems of fuel shortage and environmental limitations. The NERC notes that the combination of high transTABLE III.-ESTIMATED FUTURE INSTALLED GENERATING CAPACITY FOR NEW ENGLAND: 1970, 1980, AND 1990 1

1 Including Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Source: Based on report of the Northeast Regional Advisory Committee, December 1968.