August 10, 1978
Page 25357
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the bill as reported provides $10.1 billion in new budget authority. Outlays associated with the bill total $9.5 billion, including $4.5 billion in outlays from budget authority provided in prior years.
Under section 302(b) of the Budget Act, the Appropriations Committee divides among its subcommittees the total budget authority and outlays allocated to the committee under the first budget resolution. The Appropriations Committee has allocated $10.8 billion in budget authority and $10 billion in outlays to the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee.
The funds provided by H.R. 12928 as reported put the subcommittee $0.7 billion under its 302(b) budget authority allocation and $0.5 billion under its outlay allocation. Possible later requirements known at this time could leave the subcommittee $0.2 billion below its budget authority allocation and $0.2 billion below its outlay allocation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table showing the relationship of this bill and possible later requirements to the subcommittee allocation be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, H.R. 12928 as reported is consistent with the functional and aggregate targets in the first budget resolution, and I support it. I commend the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water, Senator JOHNSTON, for his dedicated efforts in support of the budget process.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I concur with the distinguished Senator from Maine that these are not funds for construction, as such, of the Dickey Lincoln project.
As I alluded earlier, I did a nose count of my fellow Senators. I realize that the position maintained by the Senator from Maine would be the prevailing position in a rollcall vote. However, I think the question might be a much closer one if we were discussing appropriations for actual construction.
However, if nothing else, I have learned to count. The distinguished Senator from Maine has been here longer than I and has been counting longer than I, and I suspect that he has reached precisely the same count as I have on this matter.
So, unless the floor leaders or the Senator from Maine request a rollcall vote, I will not request a rollcall vote on this matter.
Mr. MUSKIE. I see no reason to take the time of the Senate. I would be delighted to dispose of it by voice vote.
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, the debate these past 2 days on the future of the entitlements program has brought out the essence of New England's energy problem — how shall we reduce our region's dependence on imported oil, and how much will it cost New Englanders to do so.
With Dickey Lincoln we have an opportunity to address both prongs of this dilemma — to reduce both our oil dependency and our consumers' energy bills.
What will that reduction be? Dickey-Lincoln hydropower can replace 2.3 million barrels of oil per year, over $30 million at today's prices which will not be exported overseas.
As those who come from the Northwestern States know well, hydropower is inflation proof, it is embargo proof, and it is non-polluting as a fuel. There are, of course, undeniable environmental impacts in developing hydropower, as there are with all energy development projects. But I would venture that Dickey-Lincoln may be among the most carefully scrutinized hydropower projects we have considered. The Corps of Engineers spent 3 years developing the draft, multi- volume environmental statement on the dam, as well as the technical design memoranda. Public hearings and workshops were held in New England before and after the release of the draft last September. Extended public comment periods were provided. A separate study was done on the transmission lines alone.
The final EIS on the dams and lines is not yet in. It is due late this summer or early fall. The environmental and social impacts of the project are not being slighted.
Even the now-famous snapdragon — the furbish lousewort — was first threatened by the project but has recently been cited as a fine example of how the Endangered Species Act can serve the interests of both preservation and development.
Dickey-Lincoln is principally a power project. It is economically sound under the corps' analysis and 98 percent of its costs can be repaid to the taxpayers over 50 years. Electrical rates for the project's power would still be at or below current rates. It can save Maine consumers alone an estimated $12 million per year when it's on line. But in addition to providing 25 percent of Maine's peak power needs in the 1980's, 15 percent of all of New England's peak needs, and intermediate power for Maine preference customers, it also provides flood control and jobs for the economically depressed area of northern Maine.
Mr. President, I support Dickey-Lincoln now as I did in 1965 when it was first authorized. It is not a solution for meeting all our region's future energy needs, but it is one step we can take to help bring down our oil imports and our oil bills.
I support energy conservation. I support solar energy, small hydro, wind, tidal and wood development. I agree we need to broaden our energy alternatives through increased emphasis upon our renewable, clean and benign resources. My record speaks to that support, which I intend to continue. Dickey-Lincoln is among those renewable resources, and that is nearly at hand if the commitment one that is nearly at hand if the commitment is made to proceed. It is a real alternative whose contribution we can be sure of in the 1980's.
The final commitment to construction of Dickey-Lincoln is not being made today in this appropriations bill. The final EIS is yet to come and will be duly considered. These funds, however, will be immediately available if a decision to construct is made, so long as they are included in this fiscal year 1979 bill. Otherwise we will lose time and we will lose money without these funds.
Mr. President, at this time I submit for the RECORD a recent letter to the editor which addresses many of the issues raised about Dickey-Lincoln, as well as a letter from Senator MUSKIE and myself addressing this fiscal year 1979 appropriation.
The letters follow:
U.S. SENATE,
Washington, D.C.,
May 19, 1978.
EDITOR,
Bangor Daily News
DEAR Sm: Your Guest Column of May 9, "Dickey Limitations," contains several inaccuracies or misconceptions which I would like to correct.
First, the article contains a fundamental misunderstanding of the design of Dickey-Lincoln. It is not a "run of the river" hydro-power facility, dependent upon the continuous flow of the St. John River. Rather, the purpose of the Dickey dam is to capture the high spring runoff — and "store"that water — to be released through the year at peak demand times. The smaller Lincoln School dam smooths out the water's flow, producing intermediate power and increasing the output of Canadian hydro facilities downstream, which would share that increase with the U.S.
Dickey-Lincoln is not a pumped storage project. A pure pumped storage project, such as that proposed at Wyman Dam, is a net energy loser, consuming 3 units of energy for every 2 units it can produce. It is doubtful that there would be sufficient surplus capacity in New England available to fuel a pumped storage project equivalent in power output to Dickey-Lincoln.
While Dickey-Lincoln is not dependent upon having any pumped storage capability, one of the four 190 MW turbines has been designed to be reversible so that any surplus power which is available during off-peak periods could be used. The Corps estimates that use of this feature would increase the output from Dickey-Lincoln from 1.2 billion kilowatt hours annually, to 1.45 billion kilowatt hours, a small factor in Dickey's overall power supply. There should be sufficient surplus energy available in New England in the late 1980's to take advantage of this pumped storage feature of the project.
As to the economic impact of the project on Aroostook County, it is true that there will be up to 1900 jobs available during the 7-8 year construction period. Up to 75% of the workers are expected to be from Maine, with 1/2 of them from Aroostook. It is difficult, to understand how the availability of good jobs at good pay would be a negative impact on Maine. Projects of comparable size have been built in the State without adverse local impacts.
In addition, historically, long-term economic development has followed from hydro projects located in relatively undeveloped areas. The projects themselves may become the center of a local tourist economy. High energy-intensive businesses are attracted by the reliable and low-cost energy, a factor increasingly important in siting decisions. These developments can bring long-term economic benefits after construction is completed.
The final point of the article is the distribution of Dickey-Lincoln's power. First, the preliminary marketing analysis for Dickey establishes Maine as a "special marketing area" within New England. 44 percent of the energy from the project will be marketed in Maine, even if it cannot all be absorbed immediately by preference customers (i.e. municipalities and cooperatives).
However, at growth rates comparable to those of the past 8 years, preference customers will be able to use all of the 438 million KWH of intermediate load power. The additional 95 million KWH in peaking power would be sold to private utilities in Maine until the preference customers could use it.
While the northern and eastern areas of the State will be the most direct beneficiaries of this power, all Maine people will benefit from Dickey. The mix of power now sold to the preference customers will be freed up for sale elsewhere in the State. The flood control, economic development and jobs from Dickey will benefit all Maine people, as will the decrease in dependency upon foreign oil.
Dicky-Lincoln alone is not going to solve Maine or New England's energy problems. Those supporting the project do not make that claim. However, hydroelectric power is a known, developed and available technology. Dickey-Lincoln's flexibility will permit it to be easily integrated into a future mix of energy use, including conservation, small hydro power, solar, wood, wind and perhaps even tidal power.
Dickey-Lincoln is not a panacea for the reality of our foreign energy vulnerability. It is instead a major investment in Maine which can quicken our region's path to expanded economic opportunities and a stable and reliable energy future.
With best wishes.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY,
U.S. Senator.
U.S.SENATE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR COLLEAGUE: We are writing to request your support for the President's FY 1979 budget request of $1,756,000 for the Dickey-Lincoln Hydroelectric Project in northern Maine. These funds are included in H.R. 12928, and the Senate Appropriations Committee overwhelmingly rejected an attempt to delete these funds.
We believe the funds should be included for these reasons:
1. We support the project as a sound alternative energy resource for New England, lessening our dependence upon oil imports by 2.3 million barrels per year;
2. In addition, the project can provide both flood control and economic development for Maine;
3. Appropriating the funds will permit continuity in engineering and planning work and avoid additional costly delays on this project which has been authorized since 1965;
4. Expenditure of these funds would await an affirmative decision to proceed following completion of the Environmental Impact Statement.
New England needs Dickey-Lincoln. It can provide over 15% of the region's peaking power needs, and provide intermediate and peak power to Maine. Along with development of many other alternative resources, it can lessen our dependency upon oil imports. The fuel is inflation proof, embargo proof, and non-polluting. While there are environmental impacts involved, as there are with every energy producing facility, we do feel that they are offset by the power production, and by the fact that the nearby Allagash River in Maine has been preserved in perpetuity as a wilderness river.
Failure to provide funds in this fiscal year budget could result in a waste of resources should a decision be made to go ahead with construction. Funding for the advanced engineering and design would then have to await action on a FY 79 supplemental or until the FY 1980 budget, resulting in delay and cost increases.
We are awaiting completion of the final EIS on the dams and transmission lines expected in late summer or early fall of this year. Extensive comments have been made on the draft statements, and the Corps is doing further work and revision for that final statement. After the final EIS is completed, a decision can be made on construction.
The Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have made it clear that no further engineering work would be done on Dickey-Lincoln until that final decision is made. In a February statement, the Corps said:
"It is important to note at the outset that no further engineering work, as outlined below, would be resumed until decisions have been made on the project. The availability of funds in the upcoming fiscal year preserves the option of maintaining work continuity on an orderly and efficient basis. Should decisions not favor continued work, appropriate provisions would be taken to revoke the funds or reallocate to other projects."
In light of this, we hope that you will oppose any attempt to delete funding for the Dickey- Lincoln project from the FY 79 Public Works Appropriation bill.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY,
U.S. Senator.
EDMUND S. MUSKIE
U.S. Senator.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and I am perfectly willing to go forward on a voice vote.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.