February 5, 1980
Page 1875
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, as many Members of this House know, the Dickey-Lincoln School project on the St. Johns River in Maine has been a source of controversy since its authorization in the Flood Control Act of 1965. The Dickey-Lincoln project was envisioned as both an aid to flood control in northern Maine, and as an alternative energy source for New England. New England desperately needs to develop alternative sources of power because so much of the region's power is now generated by imported oil. The Dickey-Lincoln project could save 2.3 million barrels of oil per year, a savings that is clearly in the best interests of insuring a bright economic future for New England.
In spite of the economic advantages of the Dickey-Lincoln project, opponents have succeeded in providing for its de-authorization in the legislation now under consideration by this committee.
One of the project's most consistent supporters, Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE of Maine recently made a forceful and persuasive argument in favor of Dickey-Lincoln at a meeting of the Northeast Public Power Association. I insert Senator MUSKIE's remarks at this point in the RECORD.
I am sure that the de-authorization of the Dickey-Lincoln project that is carried in this bill will not be the last word on it. The distinguished senior Senator from Maine, Mr. MUSKIE, will assure that in another forum.
REMARKS OF SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
BOSTON, MASS.
I appreciate the opportunity to be with you to discuss the Dickey-Lincoln School project.
I want first to thank all of you for your efforts over a long haul through a very difficult period.
We are at a critical point in the effort for Dickey-Lincoln. I believe we have weathered the worst the opponents have to hurl at this project with public support still relatively intact. You deserve a good deal of credit for that fact. We have much work ahead of us, but I believe we will succeed.
We will succeed because Dickey-Lincoln is vital to New England's energy future.
I feel a little like the preacher sermonizing to the faithful on the importance of church attendance.
But I have not had occasion to share my thoughts on Dickey with you for some time. I hope you will bear with me, because I would like to consider with you the future of Dickey-Lincoln — where do we go from here?
Dickey-Lincoln has been so frequently and grossly mischaracterized by opponents that I always consult the record before I discuss the project. It is always a refreshing experience.
After more than a quarter century in public life, one becomes accustomed to exaggerations and distortions by proponents or opponents of one or another point of view. The opponents of Dickey-Lincoln may have reached new heights — or depths — and I suppose in the process, unintentionally paid tribute to inherent merits of the project.
I was not surprised to hear opponents of Dickey-Lincoln announce that a project specifically designed to preserve the Allagash Wilderness waterway would destroy that splendid canoeing river.
I was not surprised when I heard opponents proclaim that the project would cost $2 billion and flood 500 thousand acres, when in fact it will cost $800 million and flood 88,000 acres — less than half of one percent of Maine's forest land. They're off by a factor of 250 and 500 percent, respectively, but their figures sound dramatic and make good headlines.
I was not surprised that opponents would tell Maine people that all the power was being exported to benefit the profligate energy consumers in Massachusetts and southern New England — and then watch the same opponents tell the people of Massachusetts and southern New England that the project would make no significant contribution to their energy needs. In fact, about 45% of the output from Dickey-Lincoln will be consumed as base and intermediate load power in Maine. The remainder will be distributed as peaking power around New England to meet 17% of the region's peaking power needs.
I was not surprised to read a letter last year in which opponents describe the environmental impact statement as an attempt by the Corps of Engineers "to justify building the dam." The same opponents have said we don't need an environmental impact statement and opposed funding for it every year. These same opponents first used the environmental impact process to delay the project — they then used the hearings that process requires as a forum to distort and denounce the project. And I fully expect the same opponents will soon proclaim that the statement they didn't want completed is inadequate and that we need more studies before construction begins.
In fact, the New England Division of the Corps of Engineers has done an outstanding job on the environmental impact statement. It deserves to be commended for its thoroughness, fairness and openness. The record will show that the environmental process was honored and protected by the Corps, while opponents of Dickey, flying an environmental banner, sought at every turn to undermine the process.
I was not even surprised when a young woman approached me recently to ask how I could support construction of a nuclear dam at Dickey-Lincoln.
For some reason, opponents are unwilling to accept the simple fact that I find Dickey-Lincoln the most environmentally acceptable energy alternative available to Maine and New England. They go to considerable lengths to reconcile my environmental record with my support of Dickey- Lincoln. They have variously asserted that "Muskie has a blind spot on Dickev-Lincoln" or "Muskie is a tool of labor" or "Muskie puts public power over public resource." But apparently, they could never find one that stuck, because I have now come across a new approach which does surprise me and does offend me.
I am advised by my colleagues in the Senate that the latest distortions by those lobbying against Dickey-Lincoln involve the suggestion — and sometimes outright assertion — that I don't really support Dickey-Lincoln. The opponents apparently persuaded themselves — if no one else. I received a letter from the National Audubon Society last year asserting that I shared their view that Dickey-Lincoln is "environmentally destructive."
I may be overly sensitive, but I think that's going too far. I went to some trouble to assure the National Audubon Society that I do not share their view.
I hope I succeeded. It may be a small beginning, but if they can begin with this one fact, perhaps they can move on to develop an accurate assessment of the whole project.
Well, Dickey-Lincoln is not a nuclear dam, but what is it?
Dickey-Lincoln is a hydroelectric and flood control project which will be constructed on the upper St. John River in Northern Maine. It will consist of two dams: A large storage dam which will capture the spring runoff from the snow melt, provide flood control to eliminate floods in the St. John Valley which cost an average of $6.5 million per year, and generate 1,183,000,000 kilowatt hours of power as required for New England consumers. And a regulating dam downstream which will capture the water released from Dickey and discharge it over a period of time to generate 262 million kilowatt hours of energy annually and provide a steady flow on the river. That regular flow will enhance generation at existing downstream dams by an additional 350 million kilowatt hours per year.
In current dollars, the total cost for construction of the project, including both dams and transmission lines, is $844 million.
The Federal Government will build the project with funds appropriated by Congress. The cost will be repaid to the Federal government with interest over the first 50 years of the project.
Because much of our region's peaking power is now generated by burning heating oil, the project will reduce oil consumption in New England by 2.3 million barrels a year. At today's prices, it would displace more than $60 million a year in oil that will otherwise be imported to New England.
No one knows what oil might cost in 10 or 20 years, but even at today's prices, New England will spend $850 million in 15 years for the oil Dickey-Lincoln would have displaced if it were on the line. Dickey-Lincoln would pay for itself through the sale of power in less than 50 years. And it would still be producing power in 100 years — quite literally, free, inflation-proof power.
In short, Dickey-Lincoln will be an outstanding investment for the Federal government and a tremendous bargain for New England consumers.
The most remarkable fact about Dickey-Lincoln is that we have not built it yet. After years of study and struggle, it looks as good as we thought it would. Perhaps better.
Dickey-Lincoln actually entered public debate, of course, as something of a stepchild. Initial interest in federal energy development in Maine was directed at the potential for generating electricity from the tides in eastern Maine and New Brunswick. President Roosevelt actually began construction of the Passamaquoddy project in the 30's, but stopped development after one year.
When President John Kennedy took office in 1961, he agreed to take another look at Passamaquoddy. In the course of those studies, it became clear that tidal power would not be economically feasible on its own, but might be if accompanied by a conventional hydro project that could "smooth out" the 12-hour tidal cycle. So we looked at the upper St. John River in the early sixties and reached a point where President Johnson, in July of 1965, recommended constructionof the Dickey-Lincoln project. Congress authorized construction of Dickey-Lincoln in the flood control act of 1965.
That 1965 authorization was a major milestone and represents a significant achievement. It was a very difficult fight, not unlike the effort which remains ahead of us.
Dickey-Lincoln is the first major Federal hydroelectric project authorized for construction east of the Mississippi and north of the Mason-Dixon Line. There are a number of historic reasons for that which I won't go into now. I think most of you understand them.
New England consumers pay a tremendous price for that anomaly. It is a price we cannot afford any longer. New England is 80 percent dependent on oil for its energy, compared to a national average of 47 percent. Most of New England's oil is imported, and most of that is from OPEC. New England's energy costs are 26 percent higher than the national average.
Recent international events very clearly demonstrate the vulnerability of oil supplies abroad. Disruptions and continuing price increases are weakening our national economy, driving inflation up and complicating our international relations. The entire nation is affected. But in many ways, New England is affected most directly and most severely.
The absence of Federal hydropower doesn't fully explain our energy problems in New England, but construction of Dickey-Lincoln is a critical element in responding to them.
Although Dickey-Lincoln was authorized in 1965 over the objections of investor-owned utilities from the northeast, these opponents succeeded in blocking appropriations for any work on the project from 1965 to 1974. In 1974, the Arab oil embargo focused attention on Dickey, and $800,000 was appropriated for advanced planning and engineering. The National Environmental Policy Act was the law of the land, so we directed the corps in 1974 to proceed with environmental studies and provided $2.5 million in that year. We have financed the studies at the level requested each year since.
The money in the current budget should allow for completion of the environmental studies this spring, as I understand it.
The environmental review of Dickey-Lincoln has been a long, tedious and thorough process. It was not painless for supporters of the project. Like all major energy projects, Dickey-Lincoln will affect the environment. Indeed, it will change the character of the St. John River. But no significant environmental problems were discovered. The search was exhaustive and it provided opportunities for opponents to dramatize and distort aspects of the project. The environmental impact statement is intended, in part, to provide a forum for opponents. If I am disappointed with events of the last few years, it is not because opponents of Dickey came forward to speak. It is because those opponents had so little faith in the process, or their own position, and chose instead to abuse the process and distorted the facts.
There is no question opponents managed to erode support for Dickey-Lincoln. But after five years of a massive and intensive public relations campaign in Maine and a lobbying campaign in Congress against Dickey-Lincoln, it is clear that more Maine people support Dickey-Lincoln than oppose it. And Congress continues to provide funds for the project.
The University of Maine last fall conducted a statewide poll for the state office of energy resources. That poll, which was released on December 24, shows 42% of Maine people in support of the project and 36% opposed to it. In northern Maine — Aroostook county, where the project will be located — a clear majority favors construction.
After five years of very noisy opposition that survey is testimony to the basic good sense of Maine people, and the clear merits of the project.
So we are here today to look at the future and to look toward construction.
I think we have reached the testing point. I am prepared to agree now with one major point advanced by opponents of Dickey- Lincoln:
We need no further studies of Dickey-Lincoln, we have examined the project and it is sound. It is sound economically. It is sound environmentally. And it is sound from an energy perspective.
But we still face the serious and difficult task of making it a reality.
The $800 million required for construction of Dickey-Lincoln will have to be appropriated by Congress over the 7-year construction period. The money will have to be provided during a time when the Federal budget will be under tremendous pressure from those who want to achieve balance, keep programs up with inflation, increase defense spending and cut taxes.
A new project, particularly a new water resource project, is not guaranteed a warm reception in that climate.
We shall have to show that Dickey-Lincoln is not only in Maine's interest, in New England's interest and in the national interest, but is a priority item on the agenda. Dickey-Lincoln meets those criteria and I believe if we set out today with the objective of presenting that case to Congress, we can succeed.
We start with some real pluses. There is a strong reservoir of very effective members in both Houses on both sides of the aisle who understand and support Dickey-Lincoln. The battles we have come through thus far have established a depth of support that will be invaluable as we proceed.
The environmental impact statement and the debate which accompanied it will help us. We can, go into Congress with credibility because we have examined Dickey-Lincoln not as a pork-barrel project, but rather as an energy alternative.
During the hearings on the environmental impact statement, when debate on Dickey-Lincoln was raging in Maine, some of my colleagues were befuddled and would ask me about it. They tended to be from districts where the accumulation of Federal installations was considered the primary responsibility of the local Congressman. They were unable to comprehend why Maine people could debate for a second the infusion of $800 million of federal capital. The old saying to the contrary notwithstanding, I had to explain that Maine people have a long tradition of very carefully counting the teeth of gift horses.
So we have counted Dickey-Lincoln's teeth. We have demonstrated that Dickey-Lincoln is important to Maine and New England. It provides clean, dependable energy at reasonable and inflation-proof prices. It reduces our dependence on imported oil, and it will allow development of additional sources — alternative sources if you will, that could further reduce our dependence on imported oil.
The same factors that make it valuable to Maine and New England make it valuable to the country. These factors are receiving increased attention in Washington as we survey the national energy landscape.
One week ago today, January 11, the general accounting office issued a report entitled "Hydropower — An Energy Source Whose Time Has Come Again."
That report reiterates the virtues of hydropower: Clean, inflation-proof, reliable and flexible.
The report repeats the general mathematical evaluation for hydropower which the Corps announced for Dickey-Lincoln in December. Because oil costs are rising so fast relative to construction costs, hydropower and Dickey-power become more and more attractive every month. Hydro costs are almost entirely associated with construction, so once a plant is in place, costs do not rise but actually fall.
Dickey-Lincoln compares favorably with oil-fired plants today. How much better will it compare 50 years from now after all capital costs have been paid back and the plant continues to generate electricity for Maine and New England?
I recommend the GAO report to you. It examines present restraints and urges specific action to encourage development of hydro.
The GAO report will not rule the day, but it is one more important confirmation of the excellent work the Corps has been doing and an important buttress to many of our arguments.
There is one last justification for Dickey-Lincoln that I want to share with you. It relates back to the very reasons we first conceived the project. A storage project like Dickey not only provides peaking capacity far regular anticipated daily and seasonal load increases. It also provides tremendous reserve capacity for energy emergencies and to back up a less reliable alternative source.
As the managers who must assure the steady flow of current to your customers, you understand the importance of adequate capacity and reserve capacity. You also understand the trends in demand and supply and the real squeeze on reliable capacity. I suspect that most of you were aware that as of early December last year, New England was looking at the real prospect of blackouts and brownouts in January if a Nuclear Regulatory Commission order to close down six nuclear plants in New England was not waived. A waiver was granted and the crisis avoided, but it was uncomfortably close.
If a future emergency required that a shutdown be implemented, the reserve capacity of Dickey would pick up a significant part of the load.
On a more positive side, Dickey-Lincoln enhances opportunity for development of a variety of alternative energy sources in New England. Opponents of Dickey-Lincoln attempted to convert the debate from an evaluation of Dickey as a substitute for oil to an analysis of alternatives to Dickey. They did not succeed, in part because the need to displace oil is obvious, and in part because Dickey wins hands down over the alternatives. But we do not have an "either-or" situation, and if we really want to improve our energy future, we should use Dickey to allow us to proceed with new sources.
Just as Dickey's reliability and flexibility could enhance the feasibility of tidal power — a prospect I think will some day be realized — so too can Dickey enhance the feasibility of low head hydro development, wind and even solar power.
Even wood burning may require some electrical back-up which Dickey could help provide. I understand some Maine utilities are worried that houses which heat primarily with wood stoves or furnaces but use an electric back-up system may increase the winter peak demand in ways that are difficult to predict. Dickey's reserve capacity would help avoid problems in that regard.
If you detect a theme in this part of my remarks, I have succeeded. There is a vital role for Dickey in the future, and you are in the best position to help define it. I hope you will apply your talent and resources to seeing that Dickey-Lincoln's importance is clearly understood.
If you look at the map of Maine, the northern part of Maine is roughly in the shape of an arch.
Dickey-Lincoln is located pretty close to the keystone of the arch. That is an appropriate symbol.
Dickey-Lincoln can be the keystone to our energy future. We have to move to put it in place.
I see no reason to wait. Opponents say we have studied long enough. With your help, I will ask the Congress this year to finance construction of the project. With a divided New England delegation, it will be a tough fight. But if the facts win out, so will we.