CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
July 31, 1969
Page 21594
S. 2752 -- INTRODUCTION OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION OF POWER DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I introduce the "Intergovernmental Power Coordination and Environmental Protection Act," a bill designed to coordinate the activities of local, State, and Federal agencies with respect to the impact of the location and construction of bulk power facilities on their responsibilities for protecting the Nation's environment.
One of the most significant intergovernmental developments in recent years has been the expansion of governmental activity at all levels in the planning, development, and management of water and related land resources. Federal, State and local government agencies have strengthened their planning and development efforts in order to meet the public demand for more carefully thought out objectives and more precisely defined goals.
But at the same time, urban expansion, regional economic development, and other aspects of growth and change have placed extraordinary demands on the available supply of natural resources and the available supply of electric energy.
Official figures from the Federal Power Commission speak more persuasively than words as to the problem of the lack of electrical reliability in this country. The facts are clear that the problem has continued unabated since the Northeast blackout, affecting more and more customers, and resulting in an increasing loss of megawattage in our national electrical system.
From 1954 to the end of 1966, the Federal Power Commission reported that there were 148 power interruptions. This list included only major outages.
In 1966, the FPC required more definitive reporting of power failures by the electric companies.
The Commission required the listing of interruptions which were caused by the failure of bulk power supply facilities, including: a failure of generating equipment operating at a level of 69,000 volts or more; a failure resulting in a loss of 25,000 kilowatts or more; or a failure of half of the system load for 15 minutes or longer.
During the years 1967, 1968, and for the first half of 1969, the FPC reports that there have been a total of 237 power blackouts, affecting a total of 18,600,000 customers.
More dramatically, for the first six months of 1969, there have already been 46 power failures affecting 1,336,000 customers, more than in any comparable 6-month period subsequent to June 30, 1967.
For the information of my colleagues and others interested in this important issue, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD the following exhibits taken from official reports by the Federal Power Commission relating to these power failures;
Exhibit I, a resume of power interruption, 1954-66.
Exhibit II, power service interruptions in accordance with FPC Order No. 331 through June 12, 1967.
Exhibit III, service interruptions, June 13 to December 31, 1967.
Exhibit IV, a description of electric power interruptions, June 13 to December 31, 1967.
Exhibit V, service interruptions, January 1 to June 30, 1968.
Exhibit VI, electrical interruptions between January 1 and June 30, 1968.
Exhibit VII, service interruptions, July 1 to September 30, 1968.
Exhibit VIII, electric interruptions between July 1 and September 30, 1968.
Exhibit IX, service interruptions, October 1 to December 31, 1968.
Exhibit X, electric interruptions between October 1 and December 31, 1968.
Exhibit XI, service interruptions, first quarter of 1969.
There being no objection, the exhibits were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Tables omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, this month, while disputes were continuing over the location of nuclear powerplants in Vermont, New York, and the Chesapeake Bay, the eastern part of the Nation suffered another blackout.
This time it was called selective load-shedding, and a complete blackout was narrowly averted because the utilities were able to reduce their voltage and convince their customers to sharply reduce their energy consumption. Nevertheless, many sections of the Northeast were without electric power at a time when it was sorely needed.
There is little doubt why this near-disaster occurred. There was no mechanical mishap this time. The utilities expected more of their new plants to be on the line during this period of peak summer use, so they had more plants off the line for repair and maintenance than an adequate margin of safety would allow. There were not enough new plants in operation to take up the slack.
In effect, the insufficient planning of the power industry, our efforts to protect the environment, and the summer heat had combined to put an intolerable strain on our current electric power system. These circumstances should teach us the importance of better planning and development of our electric power systems.
To produce a "clean" form of energy, an electric generating plant pollutes the environment in one way or another. A thermal plant which uses oil or coal deposits sulfur oxides and other pollutants in the atmosphere, while a nuclear thermal facility takes in water at a normal temperature to cool its reactors and returns it at a temperature which has increased by as much as 30 degrees.
However, the effects of electric generating facilities on our environment are not limited to pollution. Poor site selection for a hydroelectric facility may needlessly ruin a unique canyon or stretch of wilderness. If a powerplant is built in the wrong place, valuable recreational opportunities may be lost for people whose needs were not even considered. And a powerplant may alter the ecology of an entire area without obviously polluting the environment.
No one wants to abandon the high energy production which supports the society most of us enjoy. The only acceptable answer to our dilemma is to coordinate the resources of government at all levels to reduce the dangers of this environmental threat.
Some basic steps have been taken. Regional river basin commissions and regional economic development commissions have been established. Various environmental control agencies have begun to work together. Many of these are intergovernmental organizations committed to bringing together our human and physical resources to improve the quality of life for all Americans. They have demonstrated the proper concern of Federal, State, and local governments for resource development and conservation, and they are promising institutions of intergovernmental planning and decision making.
Nevertheless, many problems remain unsolved, and many questions remain unanswered in regard to the location and coordination of bulk power supply facilities and their effect on the physical environment.
The unsolved problems and unanswered questions cannot be satisfactorily met on one level of government or the other. The traditional jurisdictional boundaries of municipalities and States have become blurred in the face of metropolitan growth, and the jurisdictional boundaries of many State and local agencies have become lost in the complexity of environmental and technological problems. Furthermore, the States and cities often find themselves without the expertise or the funds necessary to deal with the site selection or power coordination problems of growing electric generating systems.
Regulation of these activities and achievement of the environmental quality desired should be left to the public in the communities and the areas which will be affected. No set of national standards will ever take into account the many unique and local considerations which should be part of the basis for these decisions. On the other hand, the reliability and adequacy of electric power supply -- questions which cannot really be considered apart from environmental quality issues -- are the legitimate subject for national performance standards, since so much of our generating capacity is interconnected and interdependent.
The legislation which I introduce today recognizes the unique intergovernmental issues posed by the necessity of insuring adequacy, reliability, and environmental protection on the one hand, and a dependable supply of efficient electric energy for all Americans on the other.
Briefly, the President or his designated agency is authorized to establish regional districts for the purposes of this act, for which regional boards will be appointed by the Governors of the States included in the district. Each board shall appoint an advisory intergovernmental council for its district.
The Federal agency is then authorized to distribute to the regional boards criteria for the development of procedures for the siting and construction of bulk power facilities. On the basis of the criteria and after public participation, each regional board shall prescribe procedures for the application of the criteria within its district and procedures for the application for and the issuance of licenses. If approved by the agency, these procedures shall become the approved procedures for the region.
I ask unanimous consent that a complete summary of the provisions of this bill and its text be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 12.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, we have become accustomed to the recitation that the electric power industry doubles every 10 years, but we have not realized the grave threat to the environment inherent in this amazing rate of growth.
While the power industry doubles, the available air, water, and land resources remain constant or shrink. Our rivers and air sheds have become so contaminated from the pollution that is a byproduct of each new power plant, that the environmental costs of new additions outweigh the power benefits.
The need for more and more electric powerplants and high-voltage lines can no longer be accommodated simply by allowing power companies to build the lowest cost facilities in the most economical locations.
We cannot continue to treat the destruction of our environment as a cost of the utility business which the public must bear. We cannot continue to foul our air and heat our streams in the name of electric power. And we cannot continue to exclude the public from the decisions concerning the site selection of our generating facilities in return for the use of the public environment.
We are only now becoming aware of the costs of a desecrated environment. Recent legislation has provided substantive guidance and financial assistance in the fields of air and water pollution, but still missing with respect to the problems of electric power, is a coordinating mechanism among concerned Government agencies which will assure that sites are selected and that plants are built to comply with these and other standards.
The public must be heard before land is cleared and concrete is poured. After a plant is built it is too late to pick the best site from the public point of view or even to incorporate the necessary protective features.
A recent report by the President's Office of Science and Technology notes that we will need some 250 more mammoth powerplants in the next 2 decades -- each site requiring hundreds of acres of land and representing investments of $300 to $400 million. The transmission lines that will connect them require rights-of-way 250 feet wide. These facilities will constitute an industry much larger than all the electric power facilities built to date.
These new plants are essential to our Nation's welfare, but no more essential than our environment. It is for this reason that Congress should enact the legislation which I now introduce.
This bill will create intergovernmental processes to assure that the public interest is represented in the planning process before the plants are built; but it will also enable plants to be constructed to meet the power needs of the Nation.
The threat to our environment and to the reliability and adequacy of our supply of electric energy is too great to leave these decisions to the electric utilities. We cannot afford to wait until the plant capacity doubles; it will be too late. We continue to gamble with our resources with each passing year.
The Intergovernmental Power Coordination and Environmental Protection Act is based on my belief that the utility industry -- public and private -- has more than a limited responsibility to the public welfare and less than an absolute right to do what it pleases.
It is based on the idea that all segments of the power industry must be included in the plans for a region if reliability is to be more than a pipedream, and that the public on the local and regional levels should make the decisions that affect their welfare and their environment.
And it is based on the idea that intergovernmental cooperation and coordination can help us achieve these ideals and make technology work for us instead of against us.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be referred to the Government Operations Committee and when reported by the Government Operations Committee be referred to the Committee on Commerce.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and referred, as requested by the Senator from Maine.
The bill (S. 2752) to promote intergovernmental cooperation in the control of site selection and construction of bulk power facilities for environmental and coordination purposes; introduced by Mr. MUSKIE, was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Government Operations, by unanimous consent, and when reported by that committee, to be referred to the Committee on Commerce.
EXHIBIT 12
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION OF POWER DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
Section 1.-Short title.
Section 2.-Statement of findings and purposes.
Section 3.-Definitions.
Section 4.-Specifies procedures for the establishment of regional districts for the purposes of the Act; specifies the membership and the functions of the regional boards in each district; authorizes necessary funds for the operation of the regional boards; authorizes an intergovernmental advisory council for each regional board and specifies the membership and functions of the regional councils.
Section 5.-Authorizes the agency administering this Act to promulgate and distribute criteria for the development of procedures for the siting and construction of bulk power facilities; specifies those items to be considered in the promulgation of such criteria; authorizes each regional board to establish procedures for the application of such criteria within its region and procedures for applying for and issuing licenses pursuant to Section 7 of the Act; provides for amendment of such procedures.
Section 6.-Directs the electric utilities within each regional district to propose reliability and adequacy standards; directs each regional board to forward such standards and dissenting views to the agency; directs the agency to review and act on approval of the proposed standards.
Section 7.-Authorizes the President to appoint representatives to the regional boards in cases where the Governor of a State fails to act; authorizes the agency to promulgate standards and procedures for regions where the regional board fails to act.
Section 8. -Provides that no person shall undertake the construction or modification of any bulk power facility after six months after the agency has approved standards of procedures for regional districts without notice by the regional board of compliance with the standards and procedures approved for the region; provides for issuance of licenses for construction or modification by the agency upon receipt of such notification. Section
9.-Provides for eminent domain proceedings.