July 17, 1979
Page 18915
UP AMENDMENT NO. 388
(Purpose: To eliminate funds relating to the Dickey-Lincoln hydroelectric project)
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I have an unprinted amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine (Mr. COHEN), for himself and Messrs. LEAHY, CHAFEE and HUMPHREY, proposes an unprinted amendment numbered 368:
On page 14, line 12, strike "$1,473,566,000"and substitute "$1,472,856,000".
On page 14, line 12, insert the following immediately before the period: "Provided. That none of the funds appropriated under this paragraph may be expended in connection with the proposed Dickey-Lincoln hydroelectric project on the St. John River. Maine.".
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, this amendment would delete the $710,000 appropriation for the proposed Dickey-Lincoln hydroelectric project on the St. John River in northern Maine. Senators
LEAHY, CHAFEE, and HUMPHREY have joined me as cosponsors of this important amendment.
Our opposition to the Dickey-Lincoln project is widely shared in New England and in the Congress.
A majority of the Senate delegation from New England is opposed to the project.
For the past 2 years, our colleagues in the other body, at the urging of the New England congressional delegation, have voted to deny any further funds for Dickey-Lincoln.
Former Maine Gov. James B. Longley, after a year-long study, outlined his strong objections to Dickey-Lincoln in a comprehensive report presented to the President and the Maine congressional delegation last fall.
Nearly every major newspaper in Maine has taken an editorial position against construction of Dickey-Lincoln, even in the face of my State's serious energy problems.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recommended that Dickey-Lincoln not be constructed, and the Environmental Protection Agency has expressed grave reservations over the project's impact on Maine's environment.
Last, but certainly not least, an increasing number of Maine and New England citizens — the presumed beneficiaries of Dickey-Lincoln — have said "no" to the project.
I think it is legitimate to ask, why have so many voiced their strong opposition to Dickey-Lincoln at a time when New England's energy problems are indeed serious? To answer this question, and it is certainly a legitimate one, one need look no further than the revised draft environmental impact statement for Dickey-Lincoln, which was issued last September.
In cold and unemotional terms, this document paints a picture of unparalleled environmental destruction which would result if Dickey-Lincoln is built. Imposed on Maine's landscape would be a massive earthfill structure, rivaling the Aswan Dam in size. Were the project to the built in Washington, the area flooded would stretch to Baltimore on the north, and Harpers Ferry on the west. A half million acres of prime timberland and the last great free-flowing river in the Northeast will be destroyed or adversely affected by this extremely unwise project.
The bill of indictment against Dickey-Lincoln is not limited to environmental considerations — as important as they are. On economic grounds, the project also fails to pass muster.
The justification for authorization of all Corps of Engineer's project is measured in terms of the benefit-to-cost ratio. This device not only attempts to quantify the primary costs and benefits of a project but also, and most important, provides Congress with a yardstick to judge one project against another. For purposes of justifying the Dickey-Lincoln project to Congress, the Corps of Engineers has computed the benefit-to-cost ratio using interest rates which clearly fail to provide a realistic market test for the project. Using a 3% percent interest rate, the corps estimates the benefit-cost ratio of Dickey-Lincoln to be 2.1 to 1. At 6% percent, the benefit-cost ratio drops to 1.2 to 1. At this latter figure, the Federal Government would barely recover its investment in the project — assuming, of course, that money could be borrowed at this low rate.
Last August, Lawrence Hines, associate chairman of the Department of Economics at Dartmouth College, conducted an economic analysis of Dickey-Lincoln using an interest rate of 8.5 percent. At 8.5 percent, a rate which is still well below the present costs of borrowing money, Hines found that the benefit-cost ratio of Dickey-Lincoln fell to an unfavorable .95 to 1. Moreover, this analysis concluded that if certain questionable project benefits are disallowed, such as the power benefits accruing to Canada, the benefit-cost ratio for the project plunges to .67 to 1. At this level, the Federal Government — or should I say the American taxpayers — would lose 33 cents on every dollar invested in Dickey-Lincoln.
Who can possibly argue, in these times of inflation and pending recession, that the Federal Government can afford to waste 33 cents on every dollar it invests? How can we justify denying needed funds to other national needs, and turn around and fund a project such as Dickey-Lincoln?
Since power benefits account for approximately 96 percent of Dickey-Lincoin's projected benefits, it is imperative that the impressive-sounding figures about the project's energy potential be placed in the proper perspective.
According to the corps' own estimates,Dickey-Lincoln has the potential to replace 2.3 million barrels of oil annually. Just how much energy is that in relation to New England's needs?
The quick answer is that 2.3 million barrels represent about one-half of 1 percent of the oil New England uses annually. Put differently, 2.3 million barrels of oil would provide enough fuel to meet the Nation's needs for about 6 hours.
The question that Congress needs to focus on is whether it wants to spend over $1 billion to reduce oil imports by that level. Additionally, we need to keepin mind that during the 8-year construction period, Dickey-Lincoln will be a major energy consumer.
Earlier this year, the Senate, by a wide margin, voted against an administration plan to impose Federal restrictions on advertising lighting. The plan would have cost only $3 million to implement, and would have saved an estimated 1.6 million barrels of oil per year. That is well over one-half the oil Dickey-Lincoln would save; yet opponents of the plan, including some Members now present, argued against its adoption on the grounds that such a small saving was not worth the effort and expense involved in enforcing the restrictions; $3 million to enforce restrictions, and not worth the effort to save 1.6 million barrels of oil per year. Using this logic, I fail to see how the Senate can possibly agree to build Dickey-Lincoln — a project costing300 times more than the modest advertising restrictions proposed by the President.
Opponents of this amendment will almost certainly argue that we should look beyond Dickey-Lincoln's shaky economics, and focus only on the rising price of oil. The problem with this argument is that it implies that Dickey-Lincoln will save significant amounts of oil — it will not — and that New England faces a choice of this particular project or nothing — it does not.
Clearly, we do not face a choice of Dickey-Lincoln or nothing, or Dickey-Lincoln or nuclear power, as some have suggested. Maine and New England have viable energy options which are less costly than Dickey-Lincoln in every respect — alternatives which will preserve the natural resource options of future generations, rather than paying sole allegiance to the energy needs of today's society.
In an unprecedented effort to rationally plan the region's energy future, the New England congressional caucus and Tufts University recently sponsored an Energy Congress, consisting of 120 delegates representing virtually every constituency in New England. After a year of deliberations, the delegates unveiled a bold and farsighted energy plan just last month that will, if fully implemented, greatly reduce New England's unacceptably high dependence on oil. Significantly, the Dickey-Lincoln project failed to win the endorsement of the delegates.
Let me briefly outline for my colleagues some of the conclusions the Energy Congress reached in the area of alternative supply options for New England:
WOOD
According to the Energy Congress; by the year 2,000, wood has the potential to displace the equivalent of approximately 91 million barrels of oil annually, more than 20 percent of our current consumption. This energy would come on a sustainable basis from a renewable resource.
By 1985, a full 5 years before Dickey-Lincoln would come on line, wood could supply the equivalent of 21 million barrels of oil annually — seven times the Dickey-Lincoln output. Not only would this provide tremendous savings to New England consumers, but also it would cost the Federal Government, in the form of various economic incentives, about $205 million, or one-fifth the estimated cost of Dickey-Lincoln.
Finally, a recent Brookhaven National Laboratory study estimates that 10,000 to 16,000 jobs can be created in the Northeast from the wood energy business alone. Compare this to the 68 permanent jobs created by Dickey-Lincoln.
Another option recommended by the energy congress in New England:
SOLID WASTE
New England generates 49 million pounds of solid waste each day. The potential output of projected resource recovery plants in New England, if used only to fuel electric generating plants, could cut present day residual fuel imports by 22 percent. With the proper mix of Federal incentives totaling approximately $200 million — again, one-fifth the cost of Dickey-Lincoln, New England could generate enough electricity from solid wastes by the year 2000 to displace over 8 million barrels of oil annually. This is over three times as much energy as Dickey-Lincoln would produce, and it is energy that can be immediately tapped.
Another alternative recommended by the Energy Congress:
SMALL-SCALE HYDROELECTRIC
There are hundreds of potential small-scale hydrosites in the 1- to 25-megawatt range that could be developed at reasonable costs. Most would operate as run-of-the-river systems with no storage capacity. In general, reactivation of existing hydrofacilities is currently more economically feasible than developing new sites. Reactivation will also raise fewer environmental objections than either small-or large-scale new projects.
Reducing the regulatory burden on potential developers and providing up-front subsidies for feasibility studies and capital costs will facilitate the implementation of these hydrosites. With such assistance, an additional, 1,500 megawatts, 11/2 times the power generation of Dickey-Lincoln, is reasonably attainable according to the Energy Congress.
SOLAR ENERGY
Another option is solar energy. Solar technology offers promise for New England. The Energy Congress estimated that with the proper commitment and incentives, 10 percent of New England's electrical energy could be produced by photovoltaic solar cells by the year 2000.As much as 4 million barrels of oil annually could be displaced by this alternative energy source.
WIND
The Energy Congress concluded that up to 100 megawatts of wind energy could be feasibly developed by 1985. If tapped, this alternative energy source could replace at least one-half million barrels of oil annually by the middle of the next decade.
PUMPED STORAGE
Dickey-Lincoln is, in part, a pumped storage facility. The Army Corps of Engineers in 1976, studied four large pumped storage sites in New England, one of them in Caratunk, Maine. Each of these four sites would cause considerably less flooding than Dickey-Lincoln. Furthermore, the benefit/cost ratio for every one of these sites appears to be more favorable than Dickey-Lincoln's.
Just one of these pumped storage sites would provide more power and at less cost than Dickey-Lincoln. Also, the four sites studied by the corps are closer to market demand. The Energy Congress concluded that the amount of pumped storage capacity that can be constructed is far greater than the foreseeable need.
CONSERVATION
Next is conservation, which the President stressed so emphatically in his televised speech the other evening. Conservation can play a crucially important role in moderating the need for further peaking facilities in New England. As the Environmental Protection Agency wisely noted in its comments on the draft environmental impact statement on Dickey-Lincoln, the peaking segment of our energy demand is clearly the element which is most responsive to various load management and pricing alternatives. Existing studies of energy conservation suggest that a 20- to 40-percent reduction in energy for residential heating and cooling is feasible with an expenditure of less than $2,000, and that the first $1,000 can make a significant contribution. It is the most basic conservation measures — storm windows, caulking, weather-stripping, insulation — that offer the greatest promise. An increased financial commitment to energy conservation will almost certainly yield energy savings far in excess of the limited power Dickey-Lincoln would produce.
Mr. President, as the report of the Energy Congress clearly shows, New England's energy future is not inextricably tied to construction of Dickey-Lincoln, or Aswan West, as some have labeled it. We have alternatives which are cheaper, more economically efficient,and less environmentally destructive. Most importantly, these energy options can be tapped far sooner than Dickey-Lincoln, providing needed relief for the the citizens prior to 1990, the earliest date Dickey would produce energy.
Finally, let me make reference to a statement made earlier this year by the distinguished junior Senator from New York (Mr. MOYNIHAN) when he and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. DOMENICI) introduced a major water policy reform bill. My colleague suggested, and he is absolutely correct, that present policy for judging the merits of water projects lacks any rational pattern or program. I might add that it also lacks any sense of priority, since States do not share in the costs, but only in the benefits.
I do want to note, for the benefit of my colleagues, that the State of Maine now has under active consideration a proposal to utilize the energy potential of the St. John River by constructing a run-of-the-river hydro facility at Lincoln School. This scaled-down alternative to Dickey-Lincoln would generate approximately 70 megawatts of intermediate power for Maine, and would be funded entirely by the State of Maine itself. Given the choice, I am reasonably confident that the people of my State would far prefer this promising energy option to Dickey-Lincoln.
Mr. President, Congress has already sunk over $10.5 million into the Dickey-Lincoln project. Reams of studies have been produced. It will benefit no area but New England, and a majority of its elected representatives, reflecting the will of the people, do not want it.
The time is at hand, in my judgment, to terminate Dickey-Lincoln and direct our attention to developing alternatives which are affordable and responsible. Approval of this amendment will represent the first step down that road, and I am hopeful that my colleagues will support me in this vitally important effort.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Maine is recognized.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I shall read, if I might, a couple of quotations. The first:
New England's need for expanded hydroelectric generating capacity has never been greater. The severe impact of the energy crisis on the region has only further underscored this fact.
Those are the words of my colleague, Senator COHEN, as a Member of the House of Representatives on June 6, 1974, when he was an ardent supporter of the Dickey-Lincoln School, a support which he continued until 18 months ago.
Some of the best arguments I can find against the points he is trying to make today are contained in his own words.
Let me read another:
As we face the increasing reality that the end of the fossil fuel era is rapidly approaching, it becomes evident that this fact also signals the birth of a new era — an era in which an imperative need exists to develop available, nonpolluting, and renewable sources of energy. Efficiently operated hydroelectric plants are generally recognized to yield the cheapest and cleanest energy.
I strongly believe that our underdeveloped hydroelectric resources can play an increasingly important role in meeting the energy needs of this Nation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment which seeks to further impede this effort.
That quotation is by my colleague on the same day, June 6, 1974.
Then he undertook to answer the charge that Dickey-Lincoln would cost too much. What did he have to say in response to that charge?
(1) The primary users of Dickey power will pay for the project. Consumer-owned municipal electric and rural cooperative systems will be allocated the power output of the Federal project and they will pay back 85 percent of the total project cost in its first 50 years of operation — June 6, 1974.
(2) Every penny going into the construction of this dam for power-generating facilities is going to be paid back to the American Treasury over the first 50 years.
(3) According to the Army Corps of Engineers, we are talking right now about a total cost to the American taxpayer of $17 million. That is the total cost involved. — June 24, 1975.
Those words were all spoken by Congressman COHEN on June 24, 1975. Then a final quotation:
As a result of the central role that oil plays in the energy picture of New England, the tripled world oil prices of recent months have imposed additional economic and personal hardships on the consumers in the region, who were already saddled with higher electrical rates than most areas of the country ... I do believe that the generation of an additional 1.2 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year to the region could be an important factor in helping to stabilize power costs. In any event, it is apparent that New England consumers will not realize any relief from high energy costs if the lowest cost energy alternatives are left undeveloped.
In any event, it is apparent that New England's consumers will not realize any relief of high energy costs if the lowest cost energy alternatives are left undeveloped.
That quotation is dated June 6, 1974.
Mr. President, I agreed with all of those statements when they were made. I agree with them today, and I think any objective analysis of Dickey-Lincoln School today will underscore their validity.
Mr. President, the Dickey-Lincoln School originated out of an effort in the early 1960's sparked by myself, Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine, Senator COHEN's predecessor, President Kennedy, and Secretary Udall to undertake to mobilize the resources of northern and eastern Maine in behalf of the people of that area and the rest of Maine. It is an area of Maine that has been chronically depressed economically, an area of Maine which has not been given the opportunity to use its own resources to advance the lives of its people.
(Mr. NUNN assumed the chair.)
At my request, President Kennedy directed Secretary Udall to study these resources and to determine whether or not in some way a coordinated plan could be found to put them to work for the people of Maine.
In my request I emphasized the importance of preserving important environmental values while, at the same time, contributing some injection of economic life and blood into the economy of the region.
Secretary Udall produced his first plan which included the reservation of the Allagash Wild River Area forever in the interests of environmental values associated with that project. That had my enthusiastic support, and when the first Democratic legislature in Maine in 50 years was elected in 1964 it undertook at my urging to implement that important environmental goal. And the Allagash is by all counts the more valuable and a better white water canoeing river than the St. John in its best days.
Second, that proposal of Secretary Udall in the early sixties undertook in addition to evaluate the potential of two hydroelectric projects. He looked first at the Passamaquoddy tidal power project, which had been found infeasible by the International Joint Commission in the spring of 1961, and I asked them to consider it in connection with hydroelectric development with St. John.
Secretary Udall was able to produce a plan which would tie Passamaquoddy, a project that Senator COHEN now says he is for, with development of a hydroelectric project on the St. John. It was the combination of the two which made both feasible, both Passamaquoddy and the St. John project.
This proposal was presented to the people of Maine by Secretary Udall in a tour across Maine from Portland to Bangor to Presque Isle and Fort Kent to Eastport. It was presented on live television to the people in all areas of the State, and it was overwhelmingly approved. There was no dissenting voice within the congressional delegation representing Maine at that time or the people of Maine.
The only dissents came from two sources: Maine's private utilities, and the landowners who did not want to give up the land necessary to reserve the Allagash.
Well, we overcame the objection of the latter group in the legislature, as I have described. The electric utilities were able successfully for years into this decade to block implementation of the hydro part of the program.
Two or three years after Stewart Udall presented that proposal, Passamaquoddy became infeasible economically because of developments with respect to other power technology, particularly nuclear power. So Passamaquoddy took a back seat in the early 1960's to nuclear power.
But the St. John project was still good enough to stand on its own feet. At that time I made an analysis, and the St. John project was a better project in terms of benefit/cost ratio than three-fourths of the hydroelectric projects that have been constructed by the Federal Government in this country, and there were over 175 of them. But not one of them was ever constructed in the northeasterly portion of this country north of the Mason-Dixon line and east of the Mississippi, and to this day the Federal Government has not sponsored and constructed a hydroelectric project.
We watched the Federal Government pour money into the South, the South-west, and the West to build hydroelectric projects. At what interest rate, Mr. President? At a subsidized interest rate of 3.25 percent. The rule always was that a project carried the interest rate which prevailed when it was authorized, and there are projects in this bill, which Senator COHEN seeks to amend, still being funded at the 3.25 percent interest rate.
But that is all right. That benefits other parts of the country. When it comes to benefiting our area of the country, 3.25 percent is too little. But for these other projects, all of these benefit/cost ratios were based upon an interest rate of 3.25 percent and are still carrying that percentage rate, which is subsidized by the taxpayers of Maine and New England as well as by the taxpayers of the areas which they serve.
Now, Dickey-Lincoln met that test. All right. We had to fight the power companies. We were not able to get funding. Time passed. The cost of money rose, inflation hit. So, the Water Resources Council has proposed an interest rate of 6%.
Now, using 6% as a measure, Dickey-Lincoln School gives us a positive benefit/cost ratio, and there are only a few projects in this bill at that high an interest rate.
But I am willing to use that test even though it departs from the rule that a project carries the interest rate which prevailed when it was authorized. At 6% Dickey-Lincoln School is still a favorable project. But, no, my colleague is not satisfied with that. He wants to apply an interest rate that has never been applied to any federally funded water project in the history of the country. No wonder New England lags, no wonder.
I mean, there has been a public policy for 200 years, that of Federal subsidies of water projects that have the effect of developing various areas of the country. They have done so, and in the process they have spirited away industry from New England. The effect has been to subject New England consumers to the highest electric rates in the country. My colleague now argues that these rates are all right for others but not for Maine.
I would have expected, and my expectations were not let down, you know, that people outside Maine would offer these kinds of tests for an indigenous energy source. I never expected that the people within Maine would offer that kind of a standard, a tougher standard, for a Maine project than has ever been met by another water project, so far as I know in the history of the country.
Dickey-Lincoln, Mr. President, offers 1.2 billion kilowatt hours of electricity a year; and, including the downstream benefits from Canadian projects on the New Brunswick side of the border, it is close to 1.5 billion kilowatt hours.
The interesting thing is, Mr. President, that the lower end of the St. John River, which is located in Canada, is fully developed to generate public power. We import it into Maine. But what do we pay for it? The Canadians charge us the highest rate we have to pay in Maine for alternative sources of energy, and that is very high. They do not give us the benefit of the low cost that Canadian consumers realize from the generation of hydroelectric power on the St. John.
So here we are, perfectly willing in Maine to import St. John power from New Brunswick at a high cost, but reluctant to generate it on our part of the St. John at the lower cost that would be made possible.
The inconsistency overwhelms me. Here in a time of inflation — my colleague mentions inflation. Of course inflation raises the cost of a project, but my heavens, the implication is that it does not raise the cost of producing any alternative source of energy.
The headlines in this morning's Washington Post told us the President's program is going to cost $142 billion. Now, the effect of that, over 10 years, would be to save 1.65 billion barrels of oil a year. That approximates $10 a barrel at current prices.
With respect to Dickey-Lincoln, we are talking about $784 million, and not the billion that my colleague tosses around so loosely. The highest figure in the February Corps of Engineers report, is $784 million.
That is a lot of money, but it is not a billion. Not by more than $200 million. But that exaggeration is typical of the kind of arguments that have been used against Dickey-Lincoln over the years.
It has to be repaid over 50 years, and it will displace 115 million barrels of oil at an equivalent price of $6.80 per barrel. So this is cheaper than the program the President is laying on our desks, and there is nothing that says "This is how much of that $142 billion will be returned to the Treasury." In the case of Dickey-Lincoln's cost, at least 85 percent will be returned to the Treasury.
But there is another inflationary issue involved in this project, and that is the cost of energy once it is built. The unit cost of electricity from any hydroelectric project, Dickey-Lincoln or otherwise, once it is built, does not rise appreciably, because the operating costs are relatively minimal. If you can imagine that this Dickey-Lincoln project should come into being by 1985, depending on when and if it is ever built, how much the cost of oil would rise from that date to a date 50 years in the future, and compare it to what would happen to the cost per unit of energy from Dickey-Lincoln in 1985 compared to 50 years later, the difference would be astronomical, because hydro is the cheapest form once it is built.
And this is where Dickey-Lincoln's great value is: Primarily as a peaking source of power. And what do I mean by that? It is the most expensive form of power. It is the kind of power that an electrical system must be able to turn on at that time of the day when demand is at its peak, typically in the evening hours and the early morning hours, when you have to have a surge of power for an hour and a half or 2 hours. Keeping a nuclear plant, a coal-fired plant, or an oil-fired plant on standby for a couple of hours a day is the most expensive way to produce peaking power. I visited the Soviet Union in 1959 and traveled extensively, from one end of the country to the other, studying their electric plants. They understood their value, and they were spending hundreds of millions of dollars erecting huge hydroelectric plants in Siberia and other places, in order to maintain the ratio of hydro to other sources of power at 20 percent. And, Mr. President, the State of Washington, which is over 90 percent hydroelectric, has the lowest power rates in this country.
So if you are talking about inflation and what the consumer will have to pay over 50 years in additional costs if we use some other source of power for peaking, it will make the cost of construction look insignificant. But, no, we have to look at that $784 million that is interpreted as $1 billion as a measure of the inflationary impact of Dickey-Lincoln School.
In terms of Dickey-Lincoln's contribution to the energy output of New England, Dickey-Lincoln's total output of 1.450 kilowatt hours is more than 20 percent of Maine's total consumption, and approximately 2.5 percent of New England's total consumption. But you have to supplement those facts with the point I have just made, that in terms of the cost of peaking power the most expensive kind of power, as Senator COHEN has acknowledged in oneof the quotations I have read earlier, hydro is the cheapest way to move.
I ask unanimous consent that a table showing consumption in Maine and New England, and Dickey-Lincoln's contribution, be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the tablewas ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Dickey-Lincoln's total annual output of 1,450 million kilowatt hours is more than 20 percent of Maine's total consumption and approximately 2.5 percent of New England's total consumption. Dickey's power is largely the more valuable peaking power.
Mr. MUSKIE. I shall also ask unanimous consent, so that the actual facts on costs, and so on, may be in the RECORD, that the cost fact sheet dated February 1979 by the Corps of Engineers on Dickey-Lincoln School be printed in the RECORD.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 37 minutes remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 10 minutes more.
Mr. President, my colleague has mentioned several other options that he says are available in lieu of Dickey-Lincoln. After he got through listing them all, I said to myself, "Well, surely we have got a surplus of energy in this country. We do not have to be concerned about the President's program or the Energy Committee's program, because if all these sources are available to Maine, they are surely available to the country as a whole, and if they are more than ample for Maine, they are more than ample for the country as a whole."
I mean, what is all this energy crisis? I had thought that notwithstanding the availability of conservation, low head hydro, pumped storage, excess Canadian hydropower, and so on, we were still short. That is what my people in Maine say, that they are short.
But let us look at some of these alternatives.
Conservation obviously is critically important to our country and to our region. I have been urging it upon our constituents for a long time.
We should continue to encourage conservation and require it where appropriate. But conservation alone cannot displace our need for electric power and does not reduce the need for Dickey-Lincoln. Central Maine Power predicts that demand for electricity will increase annually at a rate of 4.4 percent and that may be a conservative estimate, since historic growth rates have been higher. Recent growth rates have been about 7 percent annually.
That may be a conservative estimate, Mr. President, since historic growth rates have been higher.
Recent growth rates have been about 7 percent annually.
Studies prepared for the Maine Public Utilities Commission predict demand will increase at a rate of from 3.4 to 5.2 percent annually over the next 10 years. Obviously, we must have every source of energy available.
Load management and peak pricing can help control demand but there are limits to what can be gained and delays related to metering and equipment changes.
Let us look at low head hydro, for which my colleague has used the New England Energy Congress as an authority.
Low head hydro is an important resource for Maine and New England and should be encouraged wherever feasible. But development of low head hydro is not a replacement for Dickey-Lincoln and is not inconsistent with Dickey-Lincoln. To the contrary, Dickey-Lincoln will make development of low head hydro more feasible.
The New England Energy Congress looked at hydroelectric facilities potential through New England and found that Dickey-Lincoln represented more than half the undeveloped hydroelectric potential in New England, and Dickey would be producing power that is more reliable at cheaper rates. Comparing Dickey-Lincoln to a small hydro project, the New England Energy Congress found Dickey-Lincoln to cost less than half for the capital investment per kilowatt hour and produce electricity at about half the cost per kilowatt hour of the smaller project.
The operational problems associated with low head hydro limit its application particularly as a substitute for Dickey-Lincoln. The Northeast Energy Congress recognized these operational limitations in its report last year and were described by University of Maine Prof. Richard Hill.
Low head hydro projects suffer from susceptibility to weather problems, with dry spells producing low runs, and periods of deep cold producing ice back-ups. The limited reliability resulting from these operational problems limits the development of low head sites because backup capacity has to be maintained. When Dickey-Lincoln is in place, the tremendous reserve potential of the project will provide backup for low head hydro projects. In fact, in the event of an energy emergency, Dickey-Lincoln could operate around the clock for 35 days at full capacity.
Let us turn to wood.
Maine has a lot of wood, of course. Somewhere between 85 and 90 percent of our land area is wood covered.
To produce the equivalent amount of electricity as Dickey-Lincoln would require burning 3 to 6 million cords of wood per year. Maine's annual wood harvest is only 2.5 million cords per year.
A cord of wood contains the same energy as one-half ton to 1 ton of coal, and costs about 60 percent more, making the cost of electricity produced about one-third higher. And, of course, there are environmental factors involved.
The amount of forest land destroyed by a really massive turn to wood, could threaten land which would greatly exceed the 85,000 acres of Dickey-Lincoln. If we assume that intensive silviculture would increase the yield to the highest estimate of 15 tons per acre, we would still need to harvest an area larger than all of New England's forest lands.
Wood should be developed as an energy source, and has been, for home heating, cogeneration, and perhaps biomass conversion to alcohol. The paper industry is moving toward utilization of wood wastes for burning in their boilers, but neither the supply nor economics suggest that wood could replace Dickey-Lincoln.
Pumped storage. Mr. President, only one comment is needed with respect to pumped storage.
Pumped storage is not an energy source. It is a storage system which uses 3 kilowatts of power for every2 kilowatts generated, because it must supply the power to lift the water into the pump storage reservoir. Its value is important when you have off-peak, unused power to use for the purpose of lifting, but if you do not have excess, off-peak power for that purpose, then operating the pump storage system will take electricity away from other high priority uses.
Finally with respect to excess Canadian hydro power, Mr. President, Canada now has occasional excess hydro capacity which Maine utilities purchase. More may be available in the future. There are three reasons why this power is not a substitute for Dickey-Lincoln: First, price; second, reliability; and third, inflexibility.
Canadian power exported to the United States is priced (by Canadian law) at the price of the most expensive alternative power available to the United States. Hydro power sold to the United States would be priced at the cost of new oil fired power even though the Canadian production costs would probably be substantially lower. Canada will not enter long-term supply contracts because they insist that their resources be available to meet future Canadian demand.
To the extent that Canadian power might be available, it will not offer the flexibility of Dickey-Lincoln to respond immediately to our regular peak demand and our emergency needs.
In a real way, Dickey-Lincoln would make use of Canadian power more feasible. The transmission lines related to Dickey would be available to wheel Canadian power into the NEPOOL system, a capability which is not now available.
So in just two or three words more, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to continue to support what the Senate has supported for almost 15 years—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
The last time, by an overwhelming vote. What we have here is a project that would provide 17 percent of New England's peaking power needs when built, an area which is deficient in indigenous energy sources, and increasingly at the mercy not only of oil companies outside our region but of oil countries outside our country.
Second, Dickey-Lincoln also provides something which the opponents rarely mention: Basic power, firm power, available to the immediate region of the Lincoln Pool in northern Maine, Aroostook County, which has always been the victim, noncompetitively, of high electric rates which have hamstrung its potato industry, and any other industry which has sought to establish a base there. Forty-five percent of the energy developed by this project, which includes two dams, would be that kind of intermediatepower. I urge my colleagues to continue to support what the Senate has supported all these years.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I need. How much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eighty-seven minutes remain on the bill.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I mean in opposition to the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-three minutes in opposition to the amendment remain.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I shall be very brief. I stepped out of the Chamber because I had to bring up an amendment in the Appropriations Committee.
The Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee and the Committee on Appropriations have considered this project, with hearings and debate, not just this year but in many previous years. My only regret about this bill is that it only has $710,000 included in this bill, as requested in the President's budget. That amount is for further studies. I think, Mr. President, we ought to be committing money for construction of the Dickey-Lincoln hydro project. What do we hear year after year, Mr. President? We hear we need to harness solar energy, of which hydroelectric is one form; that we need to harness the water resources of the Northeast. I hear it from Senator DURKIN month after month in the Energy Committee. I hear it on the floor. In committee; we had a lively debate to add $100 million to this bill for low head hydro offered by Senator DURKIN.
Mr. President, the Dickey-Lincoln project, according to the preliminary estimates of the Corps of Engineers, has more energy, 830 megawatts, than all the estimated feasible low head hydro sites in New England put together — 830 megawatts of peaking power. It is true that peaking power cannot be run all the time. But, Mr. President, peaking power is what you need at the top demand of the day. If you have it at the top demand of the day, it is the most valuable of all kinds of power, because it keeps you from having to put in a whole other unit,a peaking power unit which generally burns oil. So this is a direct saver of oil.
Mr. President, the Northeast is, for the most part, a nonattainment area under the Clean Air Act. That means it is well-nigh impossible to put in any coal under present clean air rules. The Northeast certainly does not, I think they made it clear, want more nuclear energy. After we get Seabrook on line, it will take a long, long time to build one if they decide they want one. It takes 12 years now to build a nuclear plant.
I do not know what New England is going to do, Mr. President. They are energy short in New England. It is crimping the economy in New England.
I hear from my friend, the senior Senator from Maine, all the time about the economic difficulties in Maine and New England, and they are related to energy. Industry is moving out of New England. They are moving out, in large part, because they do not have energy in New England, because it requires greater amounts to heat homes, and because energy is generally more plentiful in other areas of the country. That is one of the biggest reasons for shifting employment out of New England.
Mr. President, this is the cleanest, clearest answer I know of. It is solar energy as defined by the White House. It is solar energy as defined by all the solar people. It is renewable. It does not run out. It is going to be there forever. It is clean. It also provides, behind that impoundment, water for recreation and other uses.
There are some, I know, who say we ought to leave the streams flowing free. Most of those people up there, at least the ones who I have heard testify, are for the project, because it is an environmental advantage to have this valuable hydro project with its clean energy produced up there in that woody area, where, as far as we have heard, very few people live.
Mr. President, my only regret is that we are not committing money for construction of this project now. If we cannot build Dickey-Lincoln, we might as well forget about hydropower in this country. We might as well say it is too insulting; we might as well say it is too expensive, it is unworkable and undesirable. This is as desirable a hydro project as there is left in the United States. Mr. President, it would be an outrage, I think, for us to kill this planning money at this time. I think we need to proceed. I wish we could proceed faster.
Mr. STAFFORD. Will the distinguished Senator yield a minute to me?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, I shall certainly yield to the Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I had previously asked unanimous consent that time in opposition be given to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Maine has yielded me a brief time. I have listened to the debate thus far on the motion, I understand, of the Senator from Maine to delete the money in the pending legislation for completing the environmental study with respect to the possible construction of the so-called Dickey-Lincoln Dam.
I have supported efforts to study this dam and to make preparations for its construction for a great many years, ever since the concept first began to come before Congress. I supported it back when it was fashionable for the utility companies in New England to be opposed to it. Now, of course, the situation has changed and some environmental groups are opposed to it, but the utility companies, I think recognizing its necessity for the purposes of generating electricity in this energy-short part of our country, support the proposition.
In any event, I support what Senator MUSKIE said earlier on the floor and what the distinguished Senator managing the bill (Mr. JOHNSTON) has said about this piece of legislation. I make my decision this afternoon in the belief that it would be a shame not to go ahead and complete the environmental study with respect to Dickey-Lincoln, whether a Member of this body will eventually support its construction or not. Without the completion of that environmental study, we shall not have all of the facts and record before us which will allow us to make a firm intelligent decision on whether or not the Dickey-Lincoln project should indeed go ahead and is sufficiently free of environmental difficulties so that it can be built and contribute to the energy which the Northeast has always needed and which now the whole country needs, more than ever before, in the light of our difficulties.
So, Mr. President, I hope that our colleagues will not support the amendment offered by my distinguished friend from Maine (Mr. COHEN) , but will leave this item in the legislation so that this important environmental study can be completed.
I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a telegram from Gov. Joseph E. Brennan of Maine; supporting the project, be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the telegram was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
AUGUSTA, MAINE,
July 7, 1979.
Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE:
Capitol One, D.C.
To the Members of the U.S. Senate representing the New England States:
As Governor of the State of Maine, I respectfully urge your support for the inclusion of the full amount requested in H.R. 4388, the Energy and Water Resources bill, for the completion of environmental studies for the Dickey-Lincoln Hydroelectric Project. Several reasons justify this position: 1, our nation has a clear and compelling need to develop domestic energy sources; 2, New England is in an especially vulnerable position in view of our heavy dependence on imported oil; 3, this appropriation will allow the completion of environmental studies so that policy makers can finally know the true environmental impact of the project; 4, the power generated will be safe, clean and renewable; 5, the project will be economically valuable both to New England as a whole and to depressed northern Maine in particular.
Again, I respectfully request your support for this vital energy project for the benefit of Maine, New England, and the United States.
Sincerely,
JOSEPH E. BRENNAN, Governor, State of Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-three minutes.
Mr. COHEN. I shall take just a few moments to respond to some of the statements that have been made by my distinguished senior colleague. I recall the words of one wise politician-statesman who said, "Over the course of my life, I have had occasion to eat some of my words but, for the most part, I found them to be quite edible."
I recall that the Senator quoted some of my past statements and happened to omit a statement that also appeared in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. I shall just take this opportunity to read it so that at least a fairer picture of the position of the senior Senator from Maine might be stated. This is from the RECORD of June 19, 19'75, wherein I said:
I do want to point out to my colleagues that my support for additional preconstruction planning funds does not mean that I am irrevocably committed to construction of Dickey-Lincoln. If the studies provided for in the budget request conclusively demonstrate that Dickey-Lincoln is environmentally and economically unsound, I will not only oppose further moneys for the project, but I will actively lead the light against any future attempt to revive It.
I think that should be in as well.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, if the Senator will let me say one other thing, then I shall yield.
I have the utmost respect for the Senator from Maine. I admire him a great deal. Whatever happens as the outcome of this particular measure, the admiration will continue. I simply take note that I know some of his views have changed over a period of time and views that he may have formerly held, perhaps, have been changed by changing circumstances and perhaps even a change in terms of responsibility. I appreciate that and I would never, in any way, try to cite past statements in questioning his current judgment. I hope he will extend that measure of respect to the junior Senator from Maine as well.
I yield to the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am not trying to deny inconsistency. I have been around the Senate a long time. If inconsistency were measured with longevity in this body, not many of us would last very long.
I was simply citing the Senator's previous remarks; statements with which I still agree and which I thought were on point, in response to the Senator from Maine. I would like the Senate to understand that.
Mr. COHEN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. I agree with him. I have been inconsistent, as well.
Mr. COHEN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, let me simply point out that it has been again suggested that somehow I have voted for 3 1/4 interest rates for other public projects, but not for Maine.
The fact of the matter is that I voted against the public works appropriation for fiscal year 1979 because I felt there were too many projects not fiscally responsible that had an inappropriate cost-benefit ratio.
For that reason, I opposed it last year.
When President Carter came to Washington, I went to the White House to have a meeting with him. I recall how impressed I was that he was going to try and do things in a different way.
He campaigned as an outsider, which, perhaps, he has come to regret at this point, saying things had to be changed in Washington and he was going to take the leadership in bringing about that kind of change.
So when he came, he said,
I want to change the way in which the Congress does business as far as public works projects are concerned. I want to make them more responsible, more reasonable, more fiscally effective. That is the obligation I have to the people of this country and the commitment I made.
He wanted to impose a more reasonable test as far as the interest rates were concerned, rather than a 3¼ rate, which was totally unrealistic and I think made a mockery of our system.
So I supported President Carter when he requested we disapprove a number of projects, because I felt we had to change the way in which we were doing business and could no longer afford the luxury of spending that money that was not cost effective.
I assume that was the reason they were opposed to Tellico; not only the snail darter, but Mr. Schultz submitted testimony, or a letter, indicating that even if we had 90 percent of Tellico Dam completed, it still was not cost effective to go ahead with the other 10 percent.
I simply point out, we have not turned a spadeful of earth on Dickey-Lincoln, and the administration, to be consistent — though no one in this body would argue the administration follows any pattern of consistency — I assume had to oppose Dickey-Lincoln, as well, based on that cost-benefit analysis.
The other implication or suggestion, I think I am not overly sensitive about this, my good friend, Senator MUSKIE, never expected a Senator from Maine to impose a higher standard on Maine than he would on somebody else.
I tried to indicate I would rather have voted to impose higher standards on other people, but I hope that was not to suggest I am somehow disloyal to my own State.
Certainly, a former Governor of Maine could not be considered to be disloyal to the interests of Maine, and he strongly opposed the project.
Also, I reject the motion the Federal Government, just because we visit every other part of the country, somehow we have to visit Maine or New England in the same fashion, based on whatever mistake we make in the past, that we should go ahead and make them for Maine, too.
I reject that suggestion.
Also, it has been suggested that if we have all these things I have cited, and I am not the originator of these alternative projects, it has been the New England Energy Congress, and they talk about wood, low head hydro, solid waste,