CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
June 6, 1966
Page 12369
THE HIGH COST OF ELECTRICITY IN NEW ENGLAND
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Boston Globe has recently published a„ nine-part series on the high cost of electricity in New England. Globe Staff Reporter Richard J. Connolly objectively documents the need for a Federal power cost "yardstick" for New England where we pay the highest electricity bills in the Nation.
Mr. Connolly demonstrates that a yardstick would lower power costs, would increase power use, would create competition in power generation and, in turn, would break the power monopoly which is now enjoyed by New England’s private utilities and which penalizes every consumer.
The Dickey-Lincoln School hydroelectric power project on Maine’s St. John River would provide the yardstick and its benefits to New England. Mr. Connolly’s series supports our arguments for Dickey, which Congress authorized last year over the strenuous opposition of the private power lobbyists.
Mr Connolly wrote:
The New England utilities deal in two kinds of power -- electrical and political
They have successfully used one -- political -- to enhance the value of the other at the expense of the consumer.
Mr. Connolly reports that in the absence of competition, the State public utility commissions generally have not guarded the interests of the public effectively or positively.
He writes that too often the private utilities have not had the incentive to reduce costs, that reduced costs have not meant rate reductions, and that assured markets have not produced efficiency and aggressive innovations.
Mr. Connolly finds that regulation by competition may best serve the power needs of New England.
He substantiates his findings impressively.
He writes that the private power companies administrative and general expenses per kilowatt hour of sales is 87 percent above the national average.
He writes that on a cost-per-consumer basis, New England’s systems are 26 percent above the national average.
Mr. Connolly refutes many of the excuses made by the private utilities for the high power rates. For instance, he finds that if fuel costs to the utilities were reduced to the national average, the consumer’s bill would be reduced by only 5 percent.
Mr. Connolly refutes the claim by the utilities that recent cost reductions have resulted from increased efficiency. He finds that many of the reductions resulted from decreased taxes, and that in some cases even these decreases were not passed on to the consumer.
Mr. Connolly reports that the much ballyhooed plans of the utilities for a $1.5 billion investment in new generators hold no guarantee for reduced bills to the consumer. He notes also that nuclear power, the backbone of the private utilities plans, has not proven itself and is not competitive anywhere in the Nation.
He writes that their arguments against Dickey-Lincoln School are the same as they have used against every public power project in the Nation.
He writes also that residents of communities with public power enjoy the lowest electricity bills in the Nation. These same communities have the highest power use in the Nation.
Regrettably, New England pays dearly to support the private companies. New England householders pay $4.56 for a 100-kilowatt hour bill. Householders in the Tennessee Valley pay $2.85. Commercially, Tennessee Valley businesses pay 87 percent less than New England businesses. If our region’s power rates were reduced just to the Nation’s average, our manufacturers would save $71 million a year, or about 31 percent.
Mr. President, Congress is now considering the appropriation of $1.2 million for engineering work for the Dickey-Lincoln School project. I urge my colleagues to read Mr. Connolly’s series. It is a factual analysis of New England’s power needs and of how Dickey-Lincoln School will help meet those needs. I ask unanimous consent that the nine installments in Mr. Connolly’s series be printed in the RECORD.
[TEXTS OF ARTICLES OMITTED]