July 25, 1967
Page 20112
SUPPORT OF DICKEY-LINCOLN SCHOOL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, before and since Congress authorized the Dickey-Lincoln School hydroelectric project on Maine's St. John River in 1965, traditional and selfish opposition to the project by the privately owned public utilities has created confusion about Dickey's benefits. The private utility lobby clearly has tried to obscure and misrepresent the truth about Dickey.
In an attempt to reduce the confusion, the Public Works Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee last year ordered a staff evaluation of Dickey. Earlier this year, the results of the subcommittee study were made public, and they decisively substantiated Dickey's value. The staff found that every $1 invested will generate $1.90 in benefits to consumers in New England.
A recent editorial in the Providence, R.I., Evening Bulletin summarizes the staff endorsement of Dickey. Among other observations, the Evening Bulletin notes that in the last 4 years, Congress has approved seven hydroelectric projects with lower benefit-cost ratios than Dickey's. The editorial concludes that the report "establishes a basis for the thesis that getting on with the project makes good sense. Congress should take the hint." I agree, and I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[From the Providence (R.I.) Evening Bulletin, June 8, 1967]
A SENSIBLE PROJECT
Congress is in sound position to proceed with the Dickey-Lincoln public power project in Maine now that the thicket of contradictory statements about its economic value has been cut away.
The controversial hydroelectric project conceived to relieve New Englanders from the highest power rates in the country was authorized in 1965, but getting planning appropriations through Congress has been like pulling teeth.
The reason was that Congress did not know whom to believe. Federal agencies like the Federal Power Commission and the Army Corps of Engineers have said right along that the project is economically feasible, whereas the Electric Coordinating Council of New England has reported that private utilities could produce base power for the Maine area with a nuclear plant cheaper than the federal government could with Dickey-Lincoln.
Under instructions from Congress, the staff of the House appropriations committee has completed a review of studies by public and private agencies concerning the potential of Dickey-Lincoln. In the process, it has discredited many statistics submitted by the council which represents private power groups opposing the project.
The staff reports that federally financed nuclear or fossil-fuel plants in Boston and Maine would produce cheaper power than Dickey-Lincoln, but that privately financed sources of power – subject as they are to higher debt costs and taxes – would not. On the other hand, says the staff, the Dickey project would afford flood protection and create new recreation centers which would not be the case with either federally or privately financed nuclear or conventional plants.
The staff clears up another disputed point in finding that the project would have a favorable benefit-cost ratio; that is, the dollar value of its benefits would exceed the dollar cost of operating it. The council had reached the opposite conclusion – that cost would exceed the value of benefits – but the staff contends the council erred in that conclusion by figuring the life of the project at 50 years instead of 100 years.
Clearing up the point is vital because Congress puts much weight on benefit-cost ratio in helping it decide which public projects to undertake. In the last four years, it has approved seven hydroelectric projects with lower benefit-cost ratios than the one figured by the staff for Dickey-Lincoln.
The staff report does not presume to advise Congress what should be done, but by removing contradictions that have obscured Dickey-Lincoln's worth, it establishes a basis for the thesis that getting on with the project makes good sense. Congress should take the hint.