May 28, 1974
Page 16433
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE PASSAMAQUODDY TIDAL POWER AND THE DICKEY-LINCOLN HYDROELECTRIC POWER PRODUCTS
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the proposed Dickey-Lincoln School hydroelectric power project in northern Maine has a long and controversial history in the Congress. I wonder, however, how many of my colleagues realize that the history of the project goes back as far as 1919 when an engineer by the name of Dexter Cooper first proposed to generate electric power from the tidal flows of the Passamaquoddy Bay. '' Because of the renewed interest which has been expressed in both the Passamaquoddy tidal power project and the Dickey-Lincoln School hydroelectric project, I have asked the Library of Congress to prepare a summary of the legislative history of these two interrelated projects.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this history be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the history was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows
HISTORY OF THE DICKEY-LINCOLN POWER PROJECT
(Prepared by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress)
ISSUE
In 1965 Congress authorized construction of a multi-purpose hydroelectric power project on the Upper St. John River in Maine to consist of Dickey Dam and Lincoln School Dam. Only limited appropriations were made for the project. Intense controversy developed on issues of public power in New England and the economic feasibility of the project itself. Interest in the project never died; with the recent energy shortages efforts have been made to revive the project.
PASSAMAQUODDY TIDAL POWER PROJECT
The history of Dickey-Lincoln begins as early as 1919, with the proposal to generate electric power from tidal flows of Passemaquoddy and Cobscook Bays, arms of the Bay of Fundy at the Maine and New Brunswick border. The Bay of Fundy has some of the strongest tides in the world. Tidal range of Passamaquoddy Bay averages 18 feet and can be as much as 27 feet. The primary proponent of a Passamaquoddy project for many years was an American engineer, Dexter Cooper. His 1919 proposal called for the use of dams and sluiceways to make Passamaquoddy Bay a high pool to hold the high tide, and Cobscook Bay a low pool which would drain at low tide. Power would be generated by flow between the two pools. By 1926, Cooper had obtained charters from both Maine and Canada and a preliminary permit from the Federal Power Commission. The Canadian charter, however, was conditional upon finding that fisheries of the area would not be damaged. Because of subsequent concern for fisheries, the Canadian permit was not renewed. Proposals for an all-American project were turned. down by the Public Works Administration in 1934 and the Department of the Interior in 1935.
Franklin Roosevelt was a friend of Cooper's and was quite interested in the project. In 1935, under the Emergency Relief Act of that year, President Roosevelt allotted $7 million to the Army Corps of Engineers to begin construction of a single pool project using Cobscook Bay. No further funds were appropriated, however, and work was abandoned.
A 1941 Federal Power Commission report found that an all-American project could not compete with conventional hydroelectric projects. This report suggested that an international project might merit study.
PASSAMAQUODDY-SAINT JOHN
Interest in Passamaquoddy continued and in 1956, Congress enacted Public Law 84-401 calling for an International Joint Commission study of an international Passamaquoddy project.
Subsequently, both the U.S. and Canadian governments requested the I.. J. C. to conduct such a study; the report on the study was submitted in April of 1961.
A very important factor for electric utility industries is to be able to match power production with varying demand over time. Tidal power is at a disadvantage here because not only can it not be controlled to match peak demands, but it does not provide a steady base load. By using a two pool arrangement, tidal power can be produced throughout the tidal cycle but there will still be variance which will not be matchable to daily demand cycles because the tidal cycle is about 25 hours long. Also tidal ranges vary with the seasons.
Consequently, the I.J.C. study sought means to make Passamaquoddy power more useful by matching it with an auxiliary power source. Possibilities considered were conventional river hydroelectric facilities, steam electric generation and pumped storage. Of the various combinations considered the most economically feasible proved to be the tidal project, together with conventional hydroelectric. The hydroelectric site chosen was Rankin Rapids, in Northern Maine, on the Upper St. John River just below the confluence of the Allagash River. Because highly valued fishing and boating areas of the Allagash would be flooded by a Rankin Rapids dam an alternative of two dams, one at Big Rapids upstream and one at Lincoln School downstream, was identified but the Rankin Rapids site was recommended. The I.J.C. study found that the combination of tidal power at Passamaquoddy and river hydroelectric power at Rankin Rapids would be economically feasible by U.S. criteria but not by Canadian criteria. The reason for this is that as a U.S. project the funding would be federal and valued at a relatively low interest rate (2½ percent at that time) while the Canadian half of the project would be provincial with funds borrowed from the Federal Government at a relatively high interest rate (4½ percent).
Consequently, the I.J.C. did not recommend the project. The report noted further that although the combined project might be economically feasible if built entirely by the U.S., it would essentially be a case of an uneconomic tidal project being carried by an economically feasible conventional hydroelectric project.
President Kennedy, however, requested that the Department of the Interior review the I.J.C. study and in July of 1963, Interior submitted a report which found both the tidal project and the hydroelectric project feasible, and recommended the combined project. The conventional hydroelectric facilities were to be Dickey Dam just above the confluence of the Allagash and Lincoln School dam downstream so as to avoid flooding the Allagash.
The tidal power facilities were to contain much larger generating capacity than previously studied and use reversible generators (allowing pumped storage) so that the project could be used for peaking rather than base power. Detailed material on this proposal was submitted in August of 1964 and hearings were held on legislation (S 2573, 88th Congress) to authorize the project.
DICKEY-LINCOLN SCHOOL
In July of 1965, however, Interior submitted a new report ("Conservation of the Natural Resources of New England – House Doc. No. 236, 89th Congress) which found that the Passamaquoddy tidal power project was no longer feasible on its own and recommended that the Dickey-Lincoln project be built and that further study should be made of the Passamaquoddy project. The reason for the less favorable economic analysis was that the market value for power in New England was set at a lower value because of large efficient thermal plants which had been developed in the last couple years. Also, the interest rate for benefit-cost calculations had increased from 3 to 3½ percent.
The Dickey-Lincoln project was incorporated into pending omnibus water resources legislation and enacted into law. A total of $1.9 million, enough to complete about half preconstruction planning, was appropriated for fiscal years 1966 and 1967 but no further funds were appropriated.
LEGISLATIVE ACTION
Dickey-Lincoln has inspired strong debate every time it has come before Congress. The central issue of the controversy seems to be that of having a federal power project in New England, where there are none and where electric rates are generally among the highest in the Nation. There has been a strong pattern of Senate support and House opposition to the project.
AUTHORIZATION
Dickey-Lincoln was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-298, S. 2300, Section 204). The House Public Works Committee retained Dickey-Lincoln by a vote of 18 to 15. On the House floor the project was deleted by a roll call vote of 207 to 185. The project was retained in the conference report through which it was approved by both Houses.
FISCAL YEAR 1966 APPROPRIATION
Funds to initiate preconstruction planning for Dickey-Lincoln ($800,000) were included in supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1966 (P.L. 89-309, HR. 11588). Inclusion of Dickey- Lincoln brought no action until House approval of the conference report when a motion to concur with inclusion of the funds passed by a narrow 166 to 182 roll call.
FISCAL YEAR 1967 APPROPRIATION
An additional $1,100,000 for preconstruction planning of Dickey-Lincoln was included in the fiscal 1967 public works appropriation (P.L. 89-689, HR. 17787). The House Appropriations Committee reported and the House passed only $800,000 of the budgeted $1,200,000 for Dickey-Lincoln. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported and the Senate passed the full $1,200,000. The conference report compromised at $1,100,000.
FISCAL YEAR 1968 APPROPRIATION
The fiscal 1968 public works appropriation as enacted did not contain any funds for Dickey- Lincoln (P.L.90-147, H.R. 11641). The budget request for Dickey-Lincoln was $1,676,000 which the House Appropriations Committee reported. These funds were deleted by amendment on the floor through (139-113 teller, 233-169 roll call). The Senate passed the bill with the full amount for Dickey-Lincoln. In conference it was agreed to propose a floor amendment in the House to provide a compromise of $875,000. This amendment failed by a 162-236 roll call. By voice vote the Senate insisted on providing $875,000, but acceptance failed in the House (118-264 roll call) and finally by voice vote the Senate accepted the bill without funds for Dickey-Lincoln.
FISCAL YEAR 1969 APPROPRIATION
For fiscal 1969 funds were again omitted for Dickey-Lincoln by the public works appropriations (P.L. 90-479, HR. 17903). The budget request was $1,276,000 and the House Appropriations Committee recommended $671,000 but this was deleted by amendment on the House floor (118-88 teller 265-132 record). The Senate included the full $1,276,000, but the House prevailed in conference.
FISCAL YEARS 1970 AND 1971 APPROPRIATIONS
For the third and fourth times DickeyLincoln received no funding in the fiscal 1970 and 1971 public works appropriations (P.L. 91-144, H.R. 14159 and P.L. 91-439, H.R. 18127). Both times the budget request of $807,000 was passed by the Senate but was excluded by the House and was dropped in conference.
FISCAL YEAR 1972 APPROPRIATION
Fiscal 1972 public works appropriations (P.L. 92-134, HR. 10090) once more excluded Dickey-Lincoln. There was no budget request for Dickey-Lincoln for fiscal 1972, but both appropriations committees recommended funds for restudy of the project. The proposed restudy was to determine the feasibility of building Dickey-Lincoln to serve the power needs of Maine only. The House Committee recommended $100,000 for restudy but this was deleted by floor amendment (199-181 recorded teller). The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $800,000 for restudy. This was passed by the Senate but dropped in conference.
FISCAL YEAR 1973 APPROPRIATION
For fiscal 1973, there was no budget request for Dickey-Lincoln, but the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended and the Senate passed $800,000. The House, however, did not include funds for the project and once again it was dropped in conference (P.L. 92-405, H.R. 15586).
FISCAL YEAR 1974 APPROPRIATION
There was again no budget request for Dickey-Lincoln for fiscal 1974, but the public works appropriation (P.L. 93-97, H.R. 8947) did include $50,000 for a survey investigation of the St. John River Basin, Maine. This was the provision recommended by the House Appropriations Committee and passed by the House. The Senate had passed $800,000 to continue planning on Dickey-Lincoln but the House provisions were retained in conference.
The funded survey investigation is by authority of a House Public Works Committee Resolution of December 2, 1971, to review previous reports on the St. John River Basin with respect to serving the needs of Maine only, and a Senate Public Works Committee Resolution of January 27, 1972 to review the report on Passamaquoddy-St. John of July 12, 1965 (Conserving the Natural Resources of New England) to determine if any modifications are warranted.
Investigations were begun with the fiscal 1974 appropriations to meet the directives of both resolutions but generally restricted to the needs of Maine.
CURRENT STATUS
The current status of Dickey-Lincoln then has two avenues. The first is the survey investigation of the St. John Basin. The fiscal 1975 budget includes $35,000 to continue this study, which would take roughly four or five years to complete. The result could be a proposal very similar to Dickey-Lincoln or one quite different or possibly no favorable recommendation at all.
The second avenue is Dickey-Lincoln itself, which is an active authorized project.
Preconstruction planning is roughly half completed though an environmental impact statement and various updating might have to be done before construction could begin.
The fiscal 1975 budget does not include funds for Dickey-Lincoln but interest in the project seems much stronger than it has been for several years and supposedly some of the large electric utilities which have fought the project so vigorously are dropping their opposition.