June 20, 1979
Page 15636
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, S. 436 provides an increase in the limitation on borrowing authority for the Tennessee Valley Authority of $15 billion. A previous increase of $10 billion was granted in fiscal year 1976. Such periodic increases are a normal part of the TVA electric power operations, in which the costs of power plant construction ultimately are repaid by revenues from the sale of power.
This increase in borrowing authority is scored as budget authority in the energy function of the budget, Function 270. Under the terms of the budget act, it requires no appropriations. Outlays would not be increased above current law levels during fiscal year 1980-82 by this increase in the limitation on borrowing authority.
Enactment of S. 436 is consistent with the first budget resolution. I recommend approval of this increase in borrowing authority because it is necessary for the continuing efficient operation of the Tennessee Valley Authority as a public enterprise providing electric energy to persons and businesses in an 80,000 square mile area.
Mr. President, in addition to my budget interest in the TVA, I am interested in that agency as a laboratory for energy and environmental initiatives.
When the President appointed David Freeman to be Chairman of the TVA Board I asked Mr. Freeman what he would do to restore TVA to this role. In January of this year, Mr. Freeman provided me with a statement of stewardship on his first year as Chairman. In his letter, Mr. Freeman emphasizes his view that TVA can produce power and meet environmental standards at the same time. He says, "TVA is now beginning to demonstrate that electric power can be generated while protecting the health and safety of the public. In this regard we recently forwarded comments to EPA supporting EPA's proposed new source performance standards for electric steam generating plants and opposing views advanced by the electric utility industry."
Mr. President, I am proud of the record that David Freeman is making at TVA. I am extremely pleased to see TVA regain its position as a leader in the public interest effort to which it was originally committed. I only wish that other Federal agencies would have the courage and the foresight that the current leadership of TVA is demonstrating both with respect to energy and with respect to the environment.
As importantly, I wish the White House and the Department of Energy would pay a little more attention to the Nation's only federally owned electric utility which generates electricity from coal in determining whether or not strict pollution controls can or cannot be met.
I find little comfort in the fact that the EPA decision to soften new source performance standards for coal fired plants disregarded TVA's recommendations and chose the position advocated by the private electric utilities, the coal industry, and certain White House economists.
Mr. President, I submit for the RECORD Mr. Freeman's comments on EPA's new source performance standards together with a summary of his report on water quality in the Tennessee Valley and two articles which describe TVA under Mr. Freeman's chairmanship.
The material follows:
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,
Knoxville, Tenn.,
December 1, 1978.
Mr. DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. COSTLE: This letter constitutes TVA's comments on the proposed revisions to the Standards of Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units published September 19, 1978 (43 Fed. Reg. 42,164).
As EPA has indicated, the principal issue associated with this proposal is whether all new coal fired power plants should be required to achieve the same percent reduction in potential SO2 emissions without regard to the sulfur content of the coal being burned. The proposal calls for full or uniform control that would require either full use of flue gas desulfurization or some combination of scrubbers with other control techniques. The preamble also discusses other options proposed by the Department of Energy and the utility industry which would allow new plants using medium- or low-sulfur coal to rely on partial use of scrubbers. This, of course, is the sliding scale or partial scrubbing approach.
TVA's comments reflect the experience and perspective of the largest electric power system in the United States located in the East where the most abundant coals have a relatively high-sulfur content. We are not familiar with the experience and economics of utilities located west of the Mississippi River whose natural source of supply would be low-sulfur western coal. We have a 20-year history of development of scrubber technology and are developing new coal burning technologies such as the fluidized bed combustion process.
TVA believes the full scrubbing approach is technically feasible, would be anti-infla-tionary over the life cycle of the equipment, and is required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. Furthermore, full scrubbing will maximize the supply of coal that will be available for electric power generation in the future, thus enhancing a reliable supply of electric energy for the Nation, and it will do so without compromising environmental goals.
In recent years, TVA and other electric systems have experienced periodic severe coal shortages during which the reliability of the Nation's power supply was threatened. Such problems would, be magnified if new power plants were given regulatory incentives to use only low- or medium- sulfur coal. If new sources are equipped with full scrubbing and thus have the capability to burn all types of coal, the scarce eastern low- and medium-sulfur coals will be more accessible for the smaller, older plants where installation of scrubbers could result in severe retrofit problems.
Under the sliding scale such older plants would be in competition with new sources for low- and medium-sulfur coal. In addition, requiring full scrubbing will create a needed incentive to the continued improvement of the control technology that will be required to support continued growth.
President Carter's National Energy Plan issued on April 29, 1977, stated the reasoning and the policy which we believe is the disposition of this issue:
"Coal development and production is most economical when it is near major markets. Although coal production will expand in many areas, there should be large production increases in the highly populated Eastern and Mid West regions, where coal use in industry and utilities could grow considerably in the future. The required use of best available control technology for new power plants should stimulate even greater use of high sulfur Mid Western and Eastern coals.
"The Administration has taken a position that all new facilities, including those that burn low sulfur coal, should be required to use the best available control technology [at 65, 671."
We believe the legislative history of the Clean Air Act, as amended, directs the Administrator to require full use rather than partial use of SO2 emission reduction systems.
The conference report accompanying the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 states that revised section 111 requires—
... that the standards of performance for fossil fuel fired boilers be substantially upgraded to require the use of the best technological system of continuous emission reduction and to preclude use of untreated low sulfur coal alone as a means of compliance ... [H.R. Rep. No. 95-564, 95th Cong.. 1st Sess. 130 (1977) 1."
We agree that full scrubbing to remove 85 percent of SO2 from power plant flue gas clearly constitutes the "best technological system of continuous emission reduction." Although the Administrator may set a range of percent reduction reflecting varying fuel characteristics, we do not believe that this was intended to authorize partial scrubbing which would depart from a basic purpose of the amendments. i.e. that new sources apply the best technological system of control.
In our opinion, this language is intended to cover the possibility that percent reductions in emissions could vary when full scrubbing is used due to the characteristics of the fuel used. In other words. the Administrator must require the use of full scrubbing and then may, if consistent with other purposes of the act, vary the percent reduction requirement depending on what percent reduction could be achieved considering the quality of coal to be burned.
The performance of SO2 scrubbers may well decline with increasing age, even when the best maintenance practices are followed, but that is not a valid reason for a sliding scale at the outset.
The best available technology test should apply over the life of the equipment. It is a problem the regulatory process must address and resolve. TVA would be pleased to join with EPA in a task group to evaluate this problem and to identify methods to avoid declining scrubber performance.
In addition to supporting EPA's full scrubbing approach, TVA also supports EPA's standards for NOx and particulate controls. More detailed support for our views are enclosed together with several technical comments which we believe, if accepted, would strengthen the EPA proposal.
Sincerely,
Chairman. .
TECHNICAL COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE SULFUR DIOXIDE CONTROL
Feasibility of the proposed EPA standard
To meet the 85 percent removal standard on a 24-hour basis, except for 3 days per month when no less than 75 percent removal is allowed, new scrubbers must operate at an efficiency of 85 percent or more for at least 90 percent of the time. Based upon TVA's analysis of scrubber operating variability and coal quality variability, daily variations are such that to meet the 85 percent efficiency requirement 90 percent of the time, the 30-day average scrubber efficiency must be at least 88 to 90 percent. From TVA's experience in operating pilot and prototype scrubbers, in addition to experience in operating the full-scale limestone scrubber at the TVA Widows Creek Steam Plant Unit 8, TVA believes that the FGD state of the art is sufficiently developed to support this requirement. However, TVA experience would not support a standard more stringent than that which EPA has proposed.
Malfunction provisions of the proposed EPA standard
The proposed standard would not be violated by excess emissions or a decline in scrubber performance that occurs during (a) unit startup, (b) unit shutdown, and (c) malfunction during emergency conditions.
Emergency conditions are defined as periods when the available generating capacity of a power system is being operated at full operating capacity, less the capacity of the largest single generating unit on the system. If a malfunction occurs during a non-emergency period, the malfunctioning unit must be removed from service.
The proposed regulation makes no allowance for the severity of malfunctions. For example, if a partial breakdown in the limestone feed system resulted in a maximum in removal efficiency of 80 percent even at reduced load, the unit would have to be removed from service the same as if a total failure of the FGD system occurred. It is likely that replacement generation would come from older, less efficient coal fired plants which emit more SO2 than the unit being shut down or from gas turbines operating on oil. TVA proposes that operators be given the option to offset such malfunctions by limiting generation from the affected generating units to:
Rate Capacity x 24 hours x (required FIG efficiency) / (1--Actual FDG efficiency)
A malfunction which resulted in a drop in efficiency from 85 percent to 80 percent could, under this proposal, be offset by operating the affected unit at 75 percent of rated capacity. At the same time, the SO2 emissions from the affected unit would be maintained at or below the amount emitted when operating at full capacity.
S. DAVID FREEMAN,
Definition of emergency conditions for the proposed EPA standard
The proposed standard provides that generating units with malfunctioning scrubbers may continue to operate during power sup-ply emergency periods. Emergency periods are defined as periods when: Available total system rated capacity less the capacity of the largest system unit is less than or equal to the system load. The intent of this provision is to avoid requiring generation reductions or shutdowns during malfunction periods if such action would jeopardize the reliability or integrity of a power system. To achieve this objective, several modifications in the proposed definition of emergency conditions are needed:
a. The definition of system capacity should be clarified to ensure that net plant capability, rather than plant rated capacity is used to determine whether an emergency exists. Net plant capability is the more appropriate indicator because generating units are frequently derated or are otherwise limited to generating levels below rated capacity. Often the full rated capacity is not available to meet emergency needs.
b. The emergency condition criteria apparently applies only to system conditions at the time the malfunction occurs; thus it does not give proper consideration to an emergency condition that may develop in a few hours if the unit is removed from service. For example, an emergency condition may not exist if a unit malfunctions at 3 a.m., but may occur as the load increases at the 8 a.m. peak. The criteria should account for possible future emergency conditions by defining system load as the maximum hourly load which is expected to occur during the shorter of (a) the period that the affected facility is expected to be out of service or (b) the time required to bring alternative available system capacity into service. Furthermore, if an emergency condition develops after an affected facility is removed from service, it should be allowed to return to service to reestablish adequate system emergency reserves.
c. The definition of system emergency reserves should account not only for the capacity of the single largest generating unit, but also for reserves needed for system load-frequency regulation. There is no generally recognized formula for determining the reserves needed for regulation in the general case; however, on the TVA system, 200 megawatts of reserves are routinely provided for this purpose.
d. The term "system load" could be construed to mean only the electric power demands of the power system's own customers and not the firm or emergency power demands of interconnected power systems. In order to ensure that power supply commitments can be kept, the definition of system load should include firm and emergency power supplied to other power systems.
Long term reliability
The proposed regulation requires that FGD systems continue to operate at 85 percent efficiency or more for the life of the plant. If the long term efficiency of a scrubber were to fall below 85 percent efficiency, a plant could continue to operate in compliance only by installing additional scrubbers or derating a unit. Long term operating experience with scrubbers is not yet available, but based on our experience with electrostatic precipitators, long-term reliability may present a problem.
In selecting and installing pollution control equipment at power plants, it has become increasingly important to provide substantial redundancy and margin to ensure that the equipment is capable of reliably and continuously controlling emissions to the levels required for long periods of time. For example, the electrostatic precipitators which have been designed and installed at TVA plants since 1972 have been sized with enough margin to maintain emissions at 50-70 percent below the required emission limitations. In TVA's judgment, this redundancy in electrostatic precipitator capacity is necessary to achieve satisfactory operating reliability over the 20 to 40 years of useful life that the equipment must operate.
Since the requirement to maintain 85 percent removal stretches SO2 removal technology to its limit, present technology provides no opportunity to build into the equipment the degree of margin necessary to ensure long term reliability. We believe it would be too speculative to attempt to estimate at this time the long term efficiency of the present generation of scrubbers and incorporate any unavoidable decline in efficiency in the proposed regulations. However, a serious effort should be made, beginning in the near future, to evaluate the problem of long term maintenance of scrubber performance and to identify methods to avoid declining performance. We would be pleased to join with EPA on a task group to make such a study.
Maximum allowable emission ceiling for the proposed EPA standard
The proposed standard includes a maximum allowable emission ceiling of 1.2 lb SO2/106Btu that is not to be exceeded. This level is achievable with full S02scrubbing while burning high sulfur coal. Any lower ceiling, such as 1.0 or 0.8 lb SO2/106Btu would likely require both full scrubbing and some degree of coal blending for some coals. We believe the Nation's energy needs are best served by allowing new power plants to use plentiful high-sulfur coal, and accordingly, we support the proposed 1.2 lb SO2/106Btu ceiling.
Maximum SO2 control level for the proposed EPA standard
When the maximum SO2 control level of 0.2 lb S02/106Btu is achieved, no further SO2 emission reduction is required. Coal that has a natural SO2emission potential of 0.2 lb S02/106Btu would not have to be scrubbed at all, or coals with a natural potential of 0.4 lb S02/106Btu would only require 50 percent SO2 removal. The question has been raised that the 0.2 lb S02/106Btu maximum control level might not satisfy the percent removal requirement of the Clean Air Act.
TVA knows of no coals that have a natural SO2 emission potential as low as the 0.2 to 0.4 lb S02/106Btu range. Therefore, the EPA proposal will require some SO2emission reduction for all coals and should satisfy the Clean Air Act requirements.
NITROGEN OXIDE CONTROL
Feasibility of the proposed EPA standard
The proposed standard would require 0.6 lb/million Btu NOx emissions from the combustion of bituminous coal to be achieved on a 24-hour basis.
Available data indicates that this 0.6 lb/ 106Btu emission rate can be achieved through proper boiler design. Consequently, pollution control equipment for removing NOx from flue gas will not be required. Although only one boiler manufacturer (Combustion Engineering) has a boiler design with proven capability to control NOx to this level, other manufacturers are expected to be able to demonstrate this capability in the near future. If this is not achieved, it may be necessary to take other steps to maintain competition among boiler manufacturers. However, the environment should not be penalized because only one manufacturer has to date developed the needed boiler design.
A concern is the requirement to achieve the required level on a 24-hour average basis.The performance tests used to establish the feasibility of achieving the proposed 0.6 lb limitation were short term and consequently did not provide 24-hour average data on the boilers performance. Moreover, virtually no continuous NOx monitor data exist on boilers currently operating and meeting the current NOx standard of 0.7 lb/106Btu. Consequently, TVA recommends that EPA should postpone the establishment of an averaging time for NOx control until additional continuous monitoring data become available.
Performance testing for percent reduction requirement
The proposed standard includes the consideration that the percent reduction requirement for NOx is not controlling; and therefore, NOx percent reduction performance testing is not required even though the Clean Air Act amendments of 1977 require a percent reduction of emissions for all NSPS.
TVA believes that the percent reduction requirement for the NOx standard is satisfied by the requirement of a boiler design that reduces NOx emissions to the lowest possible levels — a reduction in NOx emissions when compared to other boiler designs. Therefore, the EPA proposal without performance testing of emission reduction should satisfy the Clean Air Act requirements, particularly since there is no demonstrated existing technology for coal fired boilers for the removal of NOx. In this case, performance testing for percent reduction is not possible.
PARTICULATE CONTROL
Feasibility of proposed EPA standard
TVA supports the proposed EPA standard that would permit a maximum particulate emission level of 0.03 lb/106Btu. We agree that the proposed standard can be met at a coal fired power plant with electrostatic precipitators or baghouse collectors. However,we feel that the amount of precipitator surface area that would be required to meet the standard on a continuous and long term basis has been understated. The preamble states that a plant burning a 3.5 percent sulfur coal would require 360 ft2 per 1,000 ACFM of precipitator capacity and that a plant burning 1 percent sulfur coal would need 435 ft2/1,000 ACFM. While it is probable that equipment in this size range can achieve the proposed standard when new and for a few hours during a compliance test, TVA does not believe that it would provide the margin of compliance necessary to sustain that level continuously and for long periods of time. This is particularly true if malfunction, breakdown, or upset periods are not permissible compliance exceptions and if the averaging time for determining compliance is 24 hours or less. TVA therefore recommends that EPA reevaluate the cost/benefit determination used to arrive at this standard based on a minimum precipitator size of 450-500 ft2/1,000 ACFM for a plant burning approximately 3.6 percent sulfur coal.
SO2 scrubbing and particulate emission control
The proposed particulate standard of 0.03 lb/106Btu may be below the level of particulate emissions from an SO2 scrubber on plants burning high-sulfur coal, even if the scrubber is preceded by a precipitator or baghouse. Fly ash emissions would, of course, be below 0.03 lb/106Btu. Although it has been clearly established that lime and limestone scrubbers contribute to the particulate content of the exhaust gas, the amount is uncertain. EPA data indicate that if low-sulfur coal is burned, the amount is not significant. However, sufficient data are not available to assess these impacts while burning high-sulfur coal. Thus, even if particulate control equipment (precipitators or baghouses) which control emissions to the 0.03 lb level are installed ahead of the scrubber, the contribution of the scrubber to the particulate content could cause the standard to be exceeded if measured in the stack following the scrubber.
To solve this problem, we propose that compliance with the particulate standard be
demonstrated by testing at the scrubber inlet rather than the scrubber outlet. However, we believe the regulations should take account of the fact that during periods of precipitator or baghouse malfunction, SO2 scrubbers serve as backup fly ash control devices. The scrubbers remove fly ash particles from the flue gas even though, at the same time, they may be contributing to particulate emissions resulting from chemical reactions in the scrubber. For this reason, TVA believes that excess fly ash emissions from a malfunctioning baghouse or precipitator passing into a fully operating 85 percent efficient scrubber should not be deemed a violation of the particulate standard.
Testing for percent reduction requirement
The proposed standard includes the consideration that the percent reduction requirement is not controlling for the particulate emission standard. The standard will in fact require at least a 99 percent reduction for solid fuels and a 70 percent reduction for liquid fuels. Therefore, the standard for particulates does not specifically include a percent emission reduction performance testing requirement, even though the Clean Air Act requires a percent reduction for all NSPS.
TVA believes that the percent reduction requirement for the particulate standard is satisfied by a stringent emission limitation and performance testing for percent reduction is not necessary.
EPA's proposed standard actually requires a 70 to 99 percent reduction in emissions. Therefore, this EPA proposal should satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
GENERAL CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS
Emerging technologies
Concern has been expressed that the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendment requirements might discourage emerging technologies such as fluidized bed combustion and solvent refined coal. However, the proposed EPA regulations make provisions for the EPA administrator to establish alternate standards for emerging SO2control technologies. This approach by EPA, therefore, would not in TVA's opinion discourage new technology development for SO2emission control.
Performance testing
The proposed regulations require sources to install continuous emission monitors. In addition, hourly manual performance testing is required when continuous emission monitors are inoperable. We believe more flexibility is needed to handle situations where continuous monitors become inoperable. Most power plants will not be staffed to handle manual performance tests on an hourly basis. We suggest that the source be required to report immediately to EPA in the event a monitor becomes inoperable. Then as an enforcement matter, EPA would determine what steps the source should take until the monitor is repaired.
IMPROVING WATER QUALITY IN THE TENNESSEE VALLEY: NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR EPA AND TVA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Division of Environmental Planning, Tennessee Valley Authority, recently identified 17 "critical" and 28 "major" water quality problems in the Tennessee Valley. Of these, the ten most significant problems are summarized in Table 1. The problems are listed in order of priority, and the action being taken by Federal, State, local, or industrial groups is described briefly.
In developing this information, municipal and industrial point source discharges, non-point source discharges, and generic problems were evaluated. Information evaluated for the municipal and industrial point source category indicates that present cleanup efforts may be insufficient to correct problems in the Holston River Basin, Chattanooga Creek, Chickamauga Creek, Citico Creek, Pigeon River, Swan Creek, Big Rock Creek, Hominy Creek, and Shoal Creek.
Within the nonpoint source category, the most significant water quality problems are the Huntsville Spring Branch-Indian Creek Embayment, the North Fork Holston River, the Ocoee River, the North Toe-Nolichucky Rivers, Emory River, and the Clinch-Powell Rivers. The most severe problems are found in the Huntsville Spring Branch-Indian Creek Embayment and the North Fork Holston River. About 500 tons of DDT is deposited in the sediments of the Huntsville Spring Branch-Indian Creek Embayment, most of which is susceptible to resuspension and uptake by biological organisms. The major water quality problem in the North Fork Holston River is mercury contamination. Accumulation of mercury from an abandoned chlor-alkali plant has resulted in closing the river for fishing. The other four problem rivers identified in the nonpoint source category are adversely impacted by sediment runoff from mining operations. This condition has impaired the propagation of fish and aquatic life and the recreational potential of the rivers.
In the generic category, the most significant water quality problem is dissolved oxygen depletion. During periods of thermal reservoir stratification, dissolved oxygen concentrations of low-level turbine discharges fall below the levels considered necessary to maintain desirable biological species. Low dissolved oxygen content limits certain uses of the water resource in about 290 miles of streams below 14 dams in the Tennessee Valley.
Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and various State and local agencies have helped improve the quality of water in the Tennessee Valley, a more comprehensive effort is needed to deal with the problems more effectively.
Specific areas in which TVA and EPA could combine resources and expand their cooperative efforts are water quality management planning, regional water quality surveillance, reservoir quality management, innovative waste treatment, and regulatory assistance. Although these areas are not all-inclusive, they were chosen because of their relevance to the needs identified in the May 1978 Symposium on National Water Policy:
1. Timely completion of the 208 waste-water management planning process.
2. Development of adequate controls of nonpoint source discharges (i.e., agriculture return flow, storm water runoff, acid mine drainage, hydrologic modifications) .
3. Need to develop sampling and analysis techniques for toxic substances present in small or trace concentrations in industrial effluents.
4. Contamination of drinking water supplies by toxic substances (e.g., cyanides, phenols, PCBs, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and heavy metals).
5. Eutrophication of lakes and reservoirs.
6. Development of innovative technologies within the timing constraints of the Construction
Grant program.
This report is presented from a water quality perspective. Water quality is only one aspect of the tremendous resource represented by the waters of the Tennessee River drainage basin, and the water quality issue is only one part of the broad question of how to best use the resources of the Tennessee Valley for the maximum benefit to the public now and in the future.
For the mutual benefit of EPA, TVA, and the people of the Tennessee Valley, we recommend that TVA and EPA form a working committee to identify specific activities that are consistent with the defined roles of each agency. Increased interagency cooperation, in any form, must fully consider the individual and collective interests and delegated authorities of the Valley States, and the States should be active participants in this matter as it progresses.
[From the New York. Times, May 29, 1979.]
EMPHASIS Now ON OLD ROOTS
(By Howell Raines)
CHATTANOOGA, TENN.— When S. David Freeman, chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority, and David E. Lilienthal, its spiritual father and former chairman, visited a nuclear power plant near here last week to mark the authority's 46th anniversary, Mr. Lilienthal was asked how he would handle the problems facing today's utility executives.
"I would resign immediately," snapped the79-year-old Mr. Lilienthal, convulsing Mr. Freeman with laughter.
In fact, however, neither man has ever shown any inclination to flee a good fight. And it was fitting that they were together in a month that also marked the 53-year-old Mr. Freeman's first anniversary as T.V.A.'s chairman. For Mr. Freeman, a former White House energy adviser handpicked by President Carter to head the nation's largest utility, has spent the last year reconnecting T.VA. to its roots as a New Deal social and economic experiment.
"Now, we're beginning to come back to what Lilienthal called the seamless web," Mr. Freeman reflected later in an interview. In that web, power generation was envisioned as but one aspect of T.V.A.'s overall mission to make the once-impoverished Tennessee River basin a model environment for business, agriculture and recreation. But under the relentlessly conservative, business-oriented management of the former Chairman, Aubrey J. Wagner, electricity was the dominant concern. In his first year as chairman, Mr. Freeman said, "probably the most critical thing was to make the tail stop wagging the dog." He explained, "Power generation, which started off as the tail, had become the dog."
This month brought two clear signs of exactly what kind of dog Mr. Freeman has in mind. First, T.V.A. delayed for six months — until October — a decision on whether to accept bids, already in hand, for new nuclear power plants. Then, on May 15, it announced an indefinite halt in construction of four nuclear reactors at three plant sites in Tennessee and Mississippi. Those reactors, part of an$11.1 billion program to build 14 reactors at six plants, represented the pet projects of Mr. Wagner, who was an advocate of producing as much power as T.V.A.'s 2.5 million customers wanted at prices that encouraged consumption.
Mr. Freeman, a former director of the Ford Foundation Energy Policy Project who is paid $52,000 a year, wants to bring a conservation ethic to T.V.A. So, while delaying some nuclear projects, he has T V.A. scientists doing research on solar energy, garbage-fired steamplants and "fuel cells" — clean, coal-powered units that can produce heat and electricity in small downtown installations.
And, as in the old days, the authority has teams looking into soil erosion in north Georgia, aid to small farmers in Alabama and commercial fishing along the 650-mile chain of lakes formed by the hydroelectric dams begun in the Lilienthal era.
Mr. Freeman also gave the staff a June deadline for producing a "safety-first program" for nuclear plants that, be said, could provide "a yardstick that people around the country can hold other utilities up to."
SEES A REGULATORY ROLE
Where T.V.A. was cozy with private utilities during Mr. Wagner's 17-year tenure, Mr. Freeman now sees T.V.A. as playing, by example, a "regulatory role" in the power industry. Toward that end, he has terminated T.V.A.'s membership in several industry associations. He has also shaken up a Knoxville-based executive staff that in Mr. Freeman's view, had become "ingrown and in-bred" in the Wagner years.
"This agency,"concluded an executive that has worked for both men, "has undergone more change in the past year than in the previous 20 years put together."
Not even Mr. Freeman would argue that he and Richard M. Freeman, a like-minded but, unrelated board member, have turned the authority around overnight. "I think we have gotten our hands on the wheel," the chairman said. "T.V.A. can be likened to a giant battleship that was going full speed ahead. Now the Freemans are on board and we're not charting a new course, but bringing it back to its original course."
The T.V.A. board will reach its full complement of three directors with the special Senate confirmation of another Carter appointee, Bill Clement, the politically active son of the late Tennessee Governor, Frank Clement. But it is the chairman who, by tradition, sets the pace and direction of work.
Almost without exception, Mr. Freeman's aides describe the hawk-nosed, Tennessee-born lawyer-engineer as a "workaholic." His wife's decision to remain in Washington in a key job with Mayor Marion Barry, leaves his evenings free to study technical reports, the authors of which often get 10 P.M. telephone calls from the chairman. A current passion is the search for ways to avoid duplicating the "inexcusable" accident at Three Mile Island that, in Mr. Freeman's view, grew from putting "power production a little ahead of safety."
NOT ABANDONING NUCLEAR POWER
Mr. Freeman cautions, however, that the construction delays and safety initiatives do not mean that T.V.A. is abandoning nuclear power, as some activists hope. "I certainly am not in favor of stopping those six plants," he said. "We're not about to turn our backs on investments of billions."
Indeed, the agency may have the first new nuclear plant to start up since the Pennsylvania accident. The two reactors at Soddy-Daisy, Tenn., will be ready for fueling in July if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approves the license. The other plants are 60 to 90 percent completed, and T.V.A. already has three reactors operating at Browns Ferry, Ala.
In a prescient speech in New York almost exactly one year before Three Mile Island, Mr. Freeman warned that lax safety practicescould create a public backlash that could destroy the nuclear power industry. Now, he said, his safety lessons are no longer taken so lightly by utility executives.
"My views have moved from left to center," he said. "The issue has come to me. I think we can make this technology acceptable, but the jury's still out."
Mr. Freeman sees nuclear plants as a necessary "bridge" to the time when less risky technologies can be used. Already, he said, construction and safety expenses may be robbing nuclear power plants of their supposed cost advantages. T.V.A. may soon be able to produce cheaper power with fuel cells that convert cheap, dirty coal to gas that powers generators and emits heat for industrial uses as a byproduct.
"If I were pressed to guess what would be the major new entrant in the race, it would be the fuel cell," said Mr. Freeman, "and it may very well win."
CRITICISM OF PREDECESSORS
Both economics and politics played roles in T.V.A.'s construction delay. Recently, the General Accounting Office accused Mr. Freeman's predecessors on the board of using inflated demand figures to justify the six nuclear plants. That criticism came at a time when the authority was appealing to Congress for an increase in its $15 billion debt ceiling simply to complete construction already started. So this was an advantageous time for T.V.A.'s new chairman to demonstrate to Congress what he called a reasonable "response to our load curve and a desire that we not contribute to inflation."
Conservation measures and a decrease in electricity demand at government installations are credited with a downturn in T.V.A.'s load curve. It sold 118 million kilowatt-hours in 1978 — 4 million less than in 1977. Even so revenues rose to $2.35 billion from $1.96 billion, reflecting an increase in consumer rates. In a strong financial year, T.V.A. retained earnings of 7 cents on the dollar.
Throughout that year, Mr. Freeman has been consistent in his determination not to "run with the pack" in the utility industry.
Nine months ago, he withdrew T.V.A. from the group of utilities fighting Federal air pollution standards. A few weeks ago, he refused to join the Edison Electric Institute — the main national organization of privately owned utilities — in a study of the Three Mile Island accident.
"I think we can be more effective going it alone on these public policy questions," hesaid. "We are not just another utility, not any more anyway."
TVA's New Look
INTERVIEW WITH DAVID FREEMAN
Press reports have stated that you were personally responsible for changing the mood of TVA, and making possible the recent settlement with EPA to reduce air pollution from coal burning power plants. Could you describe how you were able to quickly end the litigation that had dragged on so long?
The mood of an agency is set by the agency leadership, so that it's no great mystery as to how that is changed. I don't feel that what we did was really all that spectacular. We worked out an agreement that will enable TVA to comply with the law of the land, which seems to me a prerequisite for a citizen or a Federal agency.
When I came here I found that TVA board and staff realized that they had exhausted their legal options for attempting to implement the tall stack theory of compliance, which the Supreme Court had ruled unlawful in '76, and was clearly outlawed by the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act.
The question was really just trying to get two agencies that had been at each other's throats, so to speak, to stop fighting and sit down and work out an agreement. There was a desire on the part of the TVA staff to work out such an agreement because our power people knew that we had to do it, and the sooner we did it the cheaper and better it was going to be.
I did serve a role because I had had some credibility in the eyes of the EPA people, since I was new and not involved in the fight, and I was able to speak for TVA in working the agreement out, My own personal attitude was that eliminating a million tons a year of pollutants in the air was a very important thing to do, not only because the law required it but because the health of the people throughout the Eastern part of the United States required it.
You have created a new solar division sincetaking office. It seems a radical departure from TVA's traditional concern with hydro and fossil fuel power. Could you explain the reasons behind that?
I do not consider the initiatives that we've undertaken a radical departure at all fromTVA's historical role. I would consider it getting back to our basic mission. Throughout most of its history, TVA has been an innovative leader in the field of natural resources. As a matter of fact it started off life as an environmental protection agency.
The policy perspective that I'm supplying here is getting back to our origins and the expectations that Franklin Roosevelt had and Jimmy Carter has for TVA. If there was any radical departure, it may have been the course of action that TVA embarked upon a decade ago to depart from those principles.
TVA has always led in the energy field. People forget that the integrated development of a river basin was an innovative approach back in the Thirties and Forties. That was the TVA approach. Not just to look at flood control or recreation or power, but to try to get the most out of river basin development.
Also, TVA pioneered flood plain zoning — that is, not building dams where presumably you could persuade people through zoning not to live in the flood plain. In the energy field, we did pioneer in hydropower. When the hydropower wasn't sufficient, we pioneered in the economies of scale for coal-fired plants. TVA also pioneered in the nuclear field. I think that it is logical, now that solar energy has become economically feasible for many uses, and we see the bottom of the oil barrel, and we see the horrible environmental impacts of mining and burning coal, and are aware of the safety problems and proliferation concerns with nuclear power, that we continue our pioneering role. We've got to go for the sun.
TVA is probably better situated than any other organization in the country to demonstrate a happy marriage between an electric power supply organization and solar energy, passive or active, in people's buildings. Those are the demonstrations that we're putting on.
We have no reason for existing if we're not a model for the rest of the Nation. Otherwise why should the Federal Government have billions invested in a power supply organization in one part of the country? I think that we are doing our job. We also are self-sufficient in terms of our power system so that we're not being financed by the rest of the country.
The solar applications we're demonstrating are economical. It's going to save people money. And that is what we're going to demonstrate.
Do you have any solar projects under way now?
Yes. We are installing solar hot water systems in 1,000 homes in Memphis. These are with long-term loans from TVA, repaid in electric bills. The systems are economic on the basis of electric power rates today, and they will result in savings over the next 20 years to the consumer as the price of electricity continues to go up. Once a solar system is installed, it's inflation-proof, it's not going to go up in price.
And, of course, it doesn't add to pollution the way the equivalent amount of coal or nuclear power would. We feel that we're making a marvelous contribution, if that project proves as successful as it appears to be, and we expand it valleywide, just as we're doing with our conservation program.
You remarked a moment ago that TVA started out as an environmental protection agency. In what sense did you mean that?
In the early 1930's the Valley soil was washing away in the rivers, due to the flooding and the lack of vegetation. This major problem of soil erosion was one of the first jobs that TVA tackled. Those trees that we planted are now 30 to 40 years tall, and 60 percent of the Valley is in forest.
The Tennessee Valley Authority, working with State and local people and our forestry department, has successfully eliminated soil erosion throughout much of the Valley. Putting a green cover back on the land was, I think, a massive job in environmental protection.
The whole TVA concept of integrated development of resources had a conservation and environmental protection mandate. If you look at the TVA Act, you will find the word conservation in there, as many times as you find the word production. This was an insight that my colleague on the TVA board of directors, Richard Freedman, pointed out in his confirmation hearings.
You, also have to remember that hydropower was pushed by the conservationists in the early days because we were conserving water power that was otherwise wasted at sea. We were using a renewable resource.
When I say that solar energy is in TVA's finest tradition, you have to remember that hydropower also is a form of solar energy, It's a renewable source of energy as a result of the ecological system of nature.
We started off with an energy base that was renewable. It was only after World War II that we started draining the capital resource of fossil fuels and started using coal. And, I think it is in the best tradition of TVA that we've got to help lead the way to get this country back to a renewable energy base, and one that is more in harmony with the ecological system.
Are there any more hydro sites left in your seven State system?
There may be some sites, but none that are economically or environmentally feasible to develop. As a matter of fact, one of the biggest problems that I have inherited is what to do about a dam that has not yet been completed, and has great difficulty in complying with environmental laws.
There are no additional hydroelectric dams that we are planning to build. The dam-building era of TVA is about over.
Our focal point will be in developing alternative energy sources, and helping the rural communities in the valley grow in a sensible way, for both quality growth and somehow to try to stop the spread of neon signs and strip development, which is blighting the countryside.
We've got a major role to play, I think, in helping plan the growth of this valley so that we don't wake up in the year 2000 looking and smelling like northern New Jersey.
On the subject of coal burning plants, both EPA and the Department of Energy have spent a good deal of money on R&D on fluidized bed combustion. Is TVA also trying to research that?
I would not agree that they spent a good deal of money. Compared to the kind of expenditures we're making on nuclear or fusion power, the amount of money that is being spent on fluidized bed combustion is small.
TVA is designing a 200 megawatt fluidized bed demonstration plant, and I think that we are leading the Nation in that effort. The Department of Energy has acknowledged our leadership, and is supporting our plans to go ahead. We expect to have that demonstration plant on the line and completed by 1984 or at the latest 1985.
If the data that we are relying on out of the Department of Energy's pilot plant in Pennsylvania continue to prove to be satisfactory, in another six months we'll have a basis for going ahead with the design and construction of the TVA plant.
TVA will make a sizable contribution to the financing of it. So we are, I think, in a leadership role in the fluidized bed technology.
In your book, Energy — The New Era, you stressed the need for energy conservation. Is TVA now promoting such conservation in the same way that it once promoted the idea of cheap, abundant power?
I would not say that we have reached that millennium yet because TVA really led the world in the promotion of cheap electricity. But I will say that we have turned the corner and have mounted a mighty effort to promote conservation. Bob Hemphill, who was the deputy assistant secretary in the Department of Energy, and one of the foremost experts in energy conservation, is down here and he is heading the new division in TVA, the conservation division. Some of us on the inside call it the "Un-electric Division." It also includes our solar office, which is headed by Fran Koster,. former coordinator of energy programs at the University of Massachusetts, whom we were fortunate to get.
We've got some people with national reputations and expertise in conservation to mount this new effort. I think it's important and we've got a lot of programs under way. We now offer each of our customers a loan of up to $2,000, interest free, to weatherize their homes. And we've had 70,000 homes that have already taken advantage of that.
We provide a free audit to tell people what they need to do that is economical. They pay the loans back in their electric bills, and the program now is being expanded to our commercial and industrial customers.
So we have a comprehensive energy conservation program where we provide a package, delivered to the consumer's door, including financing and easy repayments. We expect to build the equivalent of several thousand megawatts capacity through investments in energy conservation over the next ten years. And that will be the cheapest, the quickest capacity that we can build.
What does electricity cost a resident in the TVA region?
About two and three-quarters cents per kilowatt hour on the average for the residential customer. The industrial customers pay about two cents a kilowatt hour.
How would that compare with Washington, D.C. or the New England region?
Oh, I think it's 30 to 40 percent cheaper than the average in the United States east of the Rockies. Our rates have gone up tremendously, but they are still appreciably lower than the residential rates throughout the country.
Our industrial rates are getting close to what utilities in the South charge industry, but I think that they still have more promotion left in their industrial rates than we do, and I suspect they will be increasing them very sharply.
We will be increasing rates but we are beginning, I think, to get our costs under control. I hope that TVA's electric power rates will not go up any faster than inflation in the next ten years.
In other words, the real price of electricity in terms of real dollars hopefully will stay about constant. That would be quite an accomplishment.
Why is TVA power so cheap for residents in this area?
Well, the hydropower is very low cost. It hasn't gone up. It's like the sun Once you make the investment, the fuel charges are practically free. Only 30 percent of our electricity goes to residents, and we're giving them the benefit of the hydropower. And we'll have rate reforms to do it even more.
Then we have some other fairly low cost sources of energy. We are able to build our plants cheaper than the private company because we use our own construction organization, and we have a record of efficiency. We also have a large, integrated grid system, and we run a pretty good shop.
We have the advantage of hydro power that most systems in the East don't have, but we do pay our way. And when we borrow money, our bonds pay Federal income tax. We're not charging less at the expense of consumers in other parts of the country.
We will have some increased costs to "clean up our act," but that will amount to a very small percentage of the total cost of electricity — at most eight or nine percent. We expect, as we complete the nuclear plants that are under construction, that they will provide us with cost effective sources of energy that will offset some of these other increased costs.
Do you have any plans for building more nuclear plants beyond what's on the books now?
We don't have any present plans. We will obviously need to make additional investments to balance supply and demand. But we have our staff looking at all the options, and we are now in a policy framework where conservation and cogeneration and solar energy are getting equal. billing with coal and nuclear.
We will make these decisions on the basis of marginal costs. We will choose either conservation, solar energy, or cogeneration or central station coal or nuclear, whichever is the most cost effective, also taking into account environmental and economic impacts.
Do you have any plans for managing the radioactive wastes of present nuclear plants?
We are intensively examining our options. We have until 1988 to implement one or more options. We've got enough capacity at our existing nuclear plants to store the spent fuel until 1988. Other utility organizations are not in that good a shape.
The basic question is: Do we build a central facility where we store all of the spent fuel for all of our plants, or do we provide storage at each plant so that there will be no transportation of the spent fuel?
The transportation of spent fuel is a source of great concern to a lot of citizens. I want to know what the arguments are for and against central versus decentralized storage of the spent fuel. We'll examine those arguments and the facts and make a decision on that point well before the year is over.
We are not going to wait for Washington to decide the spent fuel storage problem, because we've got the spent fuel. I feel a responsibility that TVA, as the organization that is generating it, should come up with a satisfactory solution. Here again is a place where TVA can exercise some leadership and serve as a model for the rest of the Nation.
Our solution may not be appropriate for other parts of the country, but we are going ahead with the job of deciding and not just wringing our hands over it.
Some critics argue that energy conservation is going to cost jobs. Do you feel that is true for the TVA region?
I find those arguments to be made either out of ignorance or with malice. It doesn't really require a Ph.D. in economics to understand that you create jobs when you invest in insulating buildings just as much, and even more per dollar, as in building a power plant.
The problem may have stemmed from a misconception in some people's mind that conservation means doing without. But most of the conservation that we can achieve comes from investments — in storm windows, insulation, heat pumps, heat exchangers, and other equipment, and changes in existing buildings, plus additional investment in new buildings, to save energy.
This country has grown over the years on the basis of doing things efficiently. Not only will conservation investments generate more jobs per dollar in investments than the power plants that they may displace, but because they are more cost effective, they are anti-inflationary.
One of the major causes of inflation today is the fact that we have been wasting and not conserving. Studies that I've done in the past suggest that we're wasting perhaps $100 billion of capital and inflating the economy something awful if we do not implement conservation.
So it's not just the protection of the environment. That may be considered as a happy byproduct. The most compelling reason right now to invest in conservation is the need to combat inflation. Energy inflation is what's been heating up the economy.
We cannot exempt energy from our anti-inflation fight. That is a suicidal path. The way that we combat inflation in the energy field is by conserving, by using our resources more frugally, by getting more energy out of existing plants, and when the energy is manufactured to make it do more work for us in our homes and in our factories. By saving energy we save money and cut down on the inflationary impact of higher and higher energy prices.
That is the burden that TVA has to shoulder and is part of our modeling effort.
When you say pollution control is a happy byproduct, you're saying that the less fuel consumed, the less pollution you have.
Of course. There is no way that you can mine a ton of coal and burn it without adding to our pollution burden. There is no way that you can mine a ton of uranium ore and refine it and build a nuclear plant without adding to the dangers of radioactivity and health and safety and impacting the land as well.
So the surest way to combat pollution is to get by with using fewer Btu's of energy to get your job done, unless you are using solar energy. But we use very little of that thus far.
You have mentioned a need to hire more minorities in the TVA region, and at TVA itself. Do you have a percentage goal you're working toward?
We have percentage goals, but so does everybody. That's not a big deal. The real question is what progress we are making to implement this goal. We are working quite hard at it, and making some progress.
I just received a report from a panel of citizens who are not TVA employees, one black man and two white people, who looked at our situation in Chattanooga. They interviewed TVA black employees and our managers, and they made a lot of suggestions which we are going to implement in the next 30 days, to improve the work environment for black employees.
I think that one impediment to recruiting able black people is that they feel you're doing it just for show and you're not going to give them a fair shake at promotions once they get there.
So we're trying to eliminate that impediment. We're trying to recruit minority citizens, but we're not going to discriminate against white people. Our Act requires that we hire on the basis of merit and efficiency. I happen to believe that there are plenty of black people who have plenty of merit and efficiency and who need to be recruited.
We're trying to do that. We need to have more training once people get on the job at TVA to fulfill their inherent capabilities. But this is a long haul because many of the needs that TVA has are in highly skilled professionsand crafts. And minorities have not had the opportunity for upward mobility in the past, so we're stressing training.
We may hire people in jobs that are not that attractive and try to upgrade them after they're here, but I want to say this: Most of what I have to say about minority employment still represents aspirations and not accomplishments.
One of our initiatives will play a very big role in terms of minority contractors. We're trying to set up a mechanism so TVA can plan its programs to create more activities for small businessmen and minority businessmen. And that's where solar energy comes in.
Not only is it pollution-proof and inflation proof, but it gives the small business person and the black entrepreneur a chance to compete and get the business. There is no way in the world a small black or white businessman is going to get much of a piece of a big nuclear power plant.
TVA has to build those itself, and to the extent that we contract, it's got to be to a large organization. They in turn employ some black people, but you won't get the black entrepreneurs with large, central station power plants. You give them an opportunitywith the smaller, decentralized technologies, like solar collectors, fuel cells, and things of that type.
There is also a trend away from doing everything with your own staff, is there not, where you're letting out contracts to smaller entrepreneurs?
We've got $500 million of subcontracts out now, and we'll be doing more of that. We had an independent management team look over our construction organization,and it made a lot of suggestions about this. And I think you will find that we are trying to utilize all the talents that are in the Valley.
I will say this for our construction organization. They have a record of cost effectiveness that is hard to beat, and we do have a mandate to keep the price of electricity as low as feasible. We're going to continue to implement that more forcefully than I think has been the case in recent years.
And that means that we are going to build these power plants ourselves unless we can find contractors that can do the work cheaper.
Business Week has mentioned your interest in promoting the use of electric vehicles. What prompts your interest in them?
I think the electric vehicle concept is one of the fundamental answers to the environmental crisis, as well as the energy crisis. I don't think that we will ever achieve implementation of the clean air standards in our major metropolitan centers, unless we get internal combustion cars the hell out of there.
And yet people are not going to be able to be served exclusively by mass transit in the foreseeable future, perhaps ever.
Certainly we've got too much of a decentralized suburbia built. I see the electrical vehicle as being the means to keep the mobility that people treasure, their independence, the freedom to stop off at a store or whatever on the way home rather than having to go in a car pool.
I think that the electrical car is a fundamental answer and I think TVA can play a useful role in pulling that technology ahead, rather than simply sitting back, as everyone seems to be doing, and waiting for some inventor to achieve a breakthrough in the battery that supposedly is going to transform it from a turkey to a treasure overnight.
I don't believe it's going to happen that way, I think we're going to make incremental improvements in the battery right along, but there are a number of institutional and marketing barriers that have to be overcome. I think that vehicle will start off first in fleets in the cities for stop and start traffic. Some of that is already being done.
It will gradually grow, taking over the second car urban vehicle market, and in time perhaps we will have electric vehicles that we can drive from one city to another.
But if you've got a car with a good 100-150 mile radius, it's going to be economical. The curves are going to cross. Every time OPEC meets we have a breakthrough in electric powered vehicles.
As the price of oil gets higher and higher, it is going to be more economically feasible to use coal or nuclear power or solar energy for electricity to charge batteries to run a vehicle. I dare say that by the turn of the century, electric power will be dominating the automobile market.
I hope that TVA can play a role in making it happen a few years sooner, and maybe in the process encourage some of the industry to locate in this part of the country and bring jobs to people in rural areas so they can keep the good life and not have to go to Detroit to get a job, which was the situation a few decades ago.
Does TVA. have money in electric car development now?
We are putting some of our own corporate research and development funds into electric cars. We only have a half dozen or so vehicles now.
I'm awaiting firm recommendations from the staff as to which vehicles we should purchase and get out on the road, but our 1980 budget visualizes that TVA will be spending millions of dollars, perhaps, on a fleet of electric vehicles, to begin demonstrating their use, to get some experience in our own operations, and encourage our distributors, State agencies, and others to do so. We are working with the Electric Power Research Institute, it is a beautiful load for electric utility systems on top of everything else, because the batteries can be charged at night. It's an off-peak load that will fit into our hydro and nuclear power system quite well.
We won't have to build any new power plants for a long time to serve the electric car market — we can just run existing plants at better load factors. From an energy point of view, it's a more efficient way to use energy than an internal combustion engine.
But aside from that point, you can get off imported oil, which is the heart of the energy crisis.
So I cannot overemphasize the importance of getting on with the development of automotive electric power. Sometimes I think that we neglect the positive answers and pour all the money into yesterday's non-answers.
You've spoken of the evils of strip-mining and deep mining coal. Are there ways TVA as an organization can help to assure proper mining practices, or are you relying on Federal law enforcement for that?
I think it's going to take a lot of both. TVA is working closely with the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) to implement the new law. Until it was passed, we had requirements in our coal power contracts that required our contractors to do a minimum amount of reclamation.
With the new Federal law we don't need those requirements any more, but we support OSM, not only through loaning them some people, but our coal contracts will now provide that if any company is in violation of Federal law, it is also in breach of contract with us, and we're not obligated to buy the coal.
And that is a rather powerful, supplemental deterrent to encourage them to comply with the law.
In addition to that, we have a team of people to assist the small coal companies to comply with the new strip mining law, which is very difficult for a very small company. They don't have the technical expertise. So we're trying to help positively.
We also do not enter into contracts with companies that are in violation of the strip mining law. And we get advice from OSM before we award the contracts. So we have a series of policies and programs that supplement the people who are struggling with the enforcement of this new surface mine law.
On the deep mine front I don't think that we have any special effort, since there is an agency of government that is enforcing the underground mining law. I think that more and more they've become effective. There's been a tremendous improvement in the levels of dust in the underground mines in the last ten years, and I think gradually the safety record is improving.
You observed a year ago that in the environment and energy debate, the real enemy was the calendar. What did you mean by that?
Well, I felt that we were losing precious time in that we have continued to drain America first, as we exhaust our storehouse of fossil fuels, and have failed to put a concentrated enough effort into developing longer-lasting alternatives, such as solar energy. And we have failed to implement the conservation options that could buy us more time.
Unfortunately the environmental perspective has taken s kind of defensive tone in the last year or two, which I think is not in the public interest. You know, we still have a major need to clean up the air. And TVA just issued a report entitled "Where the Water Isn't Clean Any More."
The Tennessee Valley is full of troublesome water quality problems that the enforcement powers of EPA and State agencies have not cleaned up yet. It's not our job, under the law. We're not the enforcement agency, but we could "smell it."
We're trying to change the tone of the debate, to get the polluters on the defensive rather than the people who are trying to clean things up. I have been troubled at the irresponsible comments by people in high office, in my administration, saying environmental protection is inflationary.
I think people who have soaked themselves in the facts know better. Some of the best investments that we're making in this country are investments in air pollution control where the data show that the benefits are enormously great. And these investments are anti-inflationary.
If you add years to someone's life, that is productive. There is just a lot of loose talk that somehow has painted investments in environmental protection as being inflationary and nonproductive. It is investments in power plants to heat the outdoors that are inflationary investments.
It's the unnecessary waste of capital, the waste of gasoline, that is causing us to pay these enormous prices for new energy sources and is inflating the economy. And I think it must be recognized that the strongest weapon we have in the fight against inflation is conservation.
The conservationists and the environmental protectors are identical, practically, in terms of their perspective, and they are often the same person. I know from having been in this, way back before there were any "energy czars," the people who were environmentally sensitive were among the first in this country to raise the conservation option.
They knew that conservation was the most fundamental way to protect the environment, because there weren't any alternative sources available that really were benign. So, I would hope that the people responsible for environmental protection can stand up proud. We have a powerful message that needs to be delivered to the American people. We need to reverse the tables and get the people who are inflating the economy to defend their practices, rather than making offensive remarks about the programs that I think may lead this country out of its economic problems..