with the realization that how and where such lines are constructed h nificant bearing on the environments in which millions of our people work and seek leisure. The Foundation believes enactment of the legislation now before mittee would be a logical step for Congress to take, in keeping with comed and constructive conservation legislation of recent years in as open space acquisition, recreation, and air and water pollution and control. Congress is to be commended for its awareness and concern for the tion and environmental quality aspects of our life. The commitm Administration, of Congress and of increasing numbers of private what has come to be called "natural beauty" is symbolic. It indica concern for the quality of our total environment. The December 30, 1965 decision of the U.S. Second Circuit Court in New York is a significant and pertinent case in point. In revers eral Power Commission decision to license a hydroelectric project on King Mountain on the Hudson River, the court found that the FP lected to assign proper weight to the Hudson's recreational and sce The court declared the commission could not "act as an umpire blan balls and strikes for adversaries appearing before it; the right of must receive active and affirmative protection at the hands of the co This meant the commission should have evaluated alternatives. the commission should have explored the possibility of underground t lines at the project. This meant the commission should have con project's effect on fisheries and other aquatic life. The court of hearings on all these questions. It is also significant that the FPC now requires consideration of and fish and wildlife values by applicants for hydroelectric licenses. It would be appropriate and desirable for Congress to authori mission to apply similar environmental considerations to major mission lines. The Conservation Foundation therefore favors enactment of legis the lines of S. 1472 and S. 2140. Specifically, the Foundation suggests amending the Federal P require 1. Certification by the FPC of any proposed transmission capacity of more than 200 kilovolts, regardless of ownership 2. Inclusion of environmental and aesthetic criteria among able terms and conditions which the FPC shall apply befo certificate of public convenience and necessity. STATEMENT OF GUS NORWOOD, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NORTHWEST P ASSOCIATION, BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, U.S. SENATE, S. 1472, S. 2139, AND S. 2140 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Gus N the past 19 years I have served as Executive Secretary of the Nort Power Association comprising 125 public and cooperative electri Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Monta Consumer-owned electric systems serve about 51% of the region: own about $3 billion in electric plant and have about $1.6 billion under construction, generate about five million kilowatts and pay lion per year into the United States Treasury for power from fed STATUS OF TESTIMONY Although our Association has no resolution specifically on these numerous resolutions and policies on transmission lines and w testimony is consistent with these policies. STATEMENT OF POSITION We hope the Committee will publish the hearing record so it ca for study by the electric utility industry and so that our systen policy positions by the time the next Congress convenes. We recognize the need for federal guidance in the high voltage transmission field and we recognize that a great public concern exists regarding the proliferation of transmission lines. We have heretofore supported bills for research on underground transmission. NATIONAL CONCERN The bills may not adequately focus attention on the national concern and objectives. The policy of the Congress should be to encourage, facilitate and, if necessary, require the installation of large capacity, optimum transmission lines to insure nationwide coordination and economical transmission consistent with minimum damage to the landscape. This may require reuse of existing right-ofway by replacing low capacity transmission lines with high capacity, high voltage facilities. The vague term public interest should be buttressed by legislative history. In the Northwest one concern is to minimize the cutting of 300 foot swaths through heavy forests. Another one is to minimize river crossings which create hazards for aircraft. Another is to reduce the visibility of transmission lines from major highways. JURISDICTION The establishment of FPC jurisdiction over federal and municipal lines as well as over private lines creates some concern among our people. Obviously we would not want such jurisdiction to be the means or leverage whereby a large utility could exert pressure on a small utility. Another concern is regarding FPC jurisdiction over federal power marketing agencies particularly as regards (a) authority to build federal lines whether private utilities contend that private lines should be built instead, and (b) weakening the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior in granting or refusing to grant easements over federal lands. We particularly question S. 2139 in permitting transmission construction in defiance of FPC disapproval. CONCLUSION These bills present some problems which indicate the desirability of more time for discussion within the industry. Accordingly we urge that the hearings be published and that the matter lay over to the next Congress. DUKE POWER CO., Charlotte, N.C. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: On behalf of Duke Power Company, an electric utility serving over 800,000 customers in the 20.000 square mile Piedmont area of North and South Carolina, under the regulatory jurisdiction of the North Carolina Utilities Commission and The Public Service Commission of South Carolina, I respectfully offer the following comments on S. 1472, S. 2139 and S. 2140 which are now the subject of hearings before your Committee. I have read the statement to be presented to your Committee on Friday, July 29, by Mr. William J. Clapp, President of the Edison Electric Institute, and I concur fully in Mr. Clapp's conclusions and adopt his statement as being the position of Duke Power Company. In addition to the points made by Mr. Clapp, I think the Senate Committee on Commerce should be aware that the voltages mentioned in all three of these bills as being "extra high voltage" are not in fact extra high voltage tre lines in the present state of recent technological advancements. bill (S. 1472) designates 230 kilovolts as being extra high voltage. "voluntary approach" endorsed by a majority of the Federal Po (S. 2139) and the "compulsory approach" suggested by other Federal Power Commission (S. 2140) both define extra high kilovolts and above. Actually, the backbone transmission Company and many other major electric utilities tod that it was not the intent of the drafters of these Power Commission certificate jurisdiction the inter any companies. But defining "extra high voltage" Today, nothing smaller than 345 kilovolts or possi accurately characterized as “extra high voltage" I think the Committee should also be aware that when Congres Part II of the Federal Power Act in 1935, it deliberated and debate length the question of whether to give the Federal Power Commission jurisdiction over interstate transmission lines. Such a provision wa in the first draft of the bill, but was deleted prior to the passage of its final form. For the reasons stated by Mr. Clapp, we see no n Congress changing its intent in this respect. In support of Mr. Clapp's premise that the electric utility industr and is continuing to construct high capacity interconnections between and between systems on a voluntary basis, and that passage of this would simply delay such construction, I would like to cite the examp Power Company and neighboring companies. At the time Duke Powe entered into the Carolinas-Virginias Power Pool Agreement with Virgi and Power Company, Carolina Power and Light Company and Sou Electric and Gas Company (which is on file with the Federal Power as a rate schedule of each company) Duke Power already had one r connection with Appalachian Power Company, five major interconne Carolina Power and Light Company, one with South Carolina Elect Company, two with Georgia Power Company and two with Yad manufacturing subsidiary of Aluminum Company of America. Since of the Carolinas-Virginias Power Pool Agreement Duke has cons additional 230 kilovolts interconnections with Carolina Power and pany, a 230 kilovolt connection with the Army Corps of Engineers H on the Savannah River, and with Georgia Power Company. It has crease the capacity at seven of these existing interconnections wit three years. Other members of the Carolinas-Virginias Power Po scheduled for 1967-69 construction the following interconnections: 1. CPL-VEPCO, 1969: 230 KV from Greenville, N.C. to Aurora 2. VEPCO-Alleghany, 1968: 500 KV from Mt. Storm to Fort M 3. VEPCO-Appalachian, 1967: 500 KV from Dooms to Roan 4. S.C.E. & G. CO.-CPL, 1967: 230 KV from Canadys to Sumter 5. CPL-VEPCO, 1967: 230 KV from Rocky Mount to Gasto From 1969 through 1973, Duke and the other members of the C ginias Power Pool are planning the following new interconnections: 1. Duke-Appalachian, 1969: 500 KV from Greenville, S.C., 2. Duke-Appalachian, 1972: 230 KV from Mitchell River t Hydro. 3. CPL-Appalachian, 1971: 500 KV from Roxboro to Roano 4. CPL-VEPCO, 1972: 500 KV from New Bern to Norfolk. 5. Duke S.C.E. & G. Co., 1970: 230 KV from Pacolet to Colun 6. Duke-CPL, 1973: 500 KV from Cowans Ford to Fayettev I feel that this record of existing and planned construction is of Mr. Clapp's assertion that the industry is doing the job volunta no problem exists which requires further amendment to the Feder: It is respectfully requested that this statement be incorporated in of the hearings now being conducted by the Senate Commerce Co 1472, S. 2139 and S. 2140. Sincerely yours, W. B. M President, Duk MIDSTATE REGIONAL PLANNING Middle Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Word has just been received by this offi currently being conducted by the Senate Commerce Committee on and S. 2140, which are modifications of the proposed legislation re of powerlines, which was heard by the Committee on May 4, 5, year. Since we have not yet seen the proposed legislation and are aware of the specific effects of the proposed modifications, we can the position already taken by this Agency. The Midstate Regional Planinng Agency will support any legislation which will (1) effectively centralize responsibility for the overall evaluation of the implications of powerline construction proposals, and, (2) assist in the exploration, development and administration of measures necessary to control and/or encourage the underground placement of powerlines in a manner consistent with the long term public interest. Respectfully, IRWIN KAPLAN. NATIONAL CONSUMERS LEAGUE, Washington, D.C. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: In an era in which prices for consumer goods appear to be constantly increasing, the price of electric power has been decreasing. This is a reflection of the vast technological advances which have lead to cost reductions in the electric industry. Additional potential economies available to the electric industry, including the increased use of extra-high-voltage transmission lines, indicate the possibility of further rate reductions in the near future. In the opinion of the National Consumers League, cost reductions in the industry, leading to rate reductions that will benefit the individual consumer, could be accelerated by enactment of S. 2140. This bill will allow the Federal Power Commission to regulate the construction, extension, modification, maintenance and operation of extra-high-voltage transmission lines. The bill would require that lines must be consistent with a comprehensive plan for the power needs in the affected area. area, as far as economically feasible, would have access to the transmission lines This would mean that all electric utilities in the at fair and reasonable rates. At the present time, large electric utilities are able to build their own transmission lines, and to refuse permission to allow smaller utilities to use these lines, or to charge prohibitive rates for their use. to either build its own line or pay a heavy tariff. Because the costs of smaller The small utility is forced utilities are exaggerated by their transmission expenses, they are forced to charge higher rates. Larger companies can, therefore, charge more, increase their profit margin, and still maintain a competitive position vis-a-vis these rates. The higher costs are paid by the consumer. that all utilities in the area have access to the transmission lines, thereby elimiS. 2140 would provide nating needless duplication of transmission facilities and enabling an entire area to be served by a single, or comparatively few, extra-high-voltage transmisison lines. The great cost advantage of extra-high-voltage transmission is due to the fact that as the size of a transmission line increases, the amount of power it can carry is multiplied; for example, a 700-kilovolt transmission line can carry 13.5 times the amount of power that a 230 kilowatt line can carry. This means that it would take thirteen and one-half 230 kilovolt lines to carry the same amount of power as one 700 kilovolt line. rather than over thirteen 230 kilovolt lines may be illustrated by the savings in The economy of having one 700 kilovolt line the cost of right-of-way and clearing. the country, $18,000 to purchase right-of-way and clearing for one mile of one It would cost, on an average throughout 700 kilovolt line. It would cost $135,000 to purchase right-of-way and clearing for 13.5 one-mile long 230 kilovolt lines. right-of-way and clearing, alone, would be $117,000. This means that the The savings in one mile of line for savings gained by the construction of one 700 kilovolt line covering a distance of 100 miles would be over $10 million. Similar savings may be obtained in the comparative cost of labor and materials. If one line is utilized to serve the needs of an entire area, these savings could be realized and passed on to the consumer. If, however, the present situation persists, and smaller companies are forced to utilize separate lines or to pay unreasonable rates for using large transmission lines, the consumer will not receive the possible reduction in costs in his monthly rate charge. Moreover, this bill, by serving to reduce the number of new lines which might be constructed, would also reduce the number of new rights-of-way required. This should result in a reduction of new scars defacing our countryside, and might even result in more land available for recreation, and for ou present need-housing. For these reasons, the National Consumers League supports S. guarantee that the consumer will benefit by the technological adva area of transmission, there must be regulation of the use of extra-h transmission facilities. With regulation, the consumer is guaranteed will be no needless duplication of facilities, and that industry cos can be reflected in his monthly electricity bill. We therefore respec that the Senate Commerce Committee report out S. 2140 favorably. Sincerely yours, SARAH H. NEW STATEMENT OF ALVIN W. VOGTLE, JR., EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, THE COMPANY, BEFORE THE SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE, REGARDI S. 2139 AND S. 2140 My name is Alvin W. Vogtle, Jr. I am executive vice presid Southern Company, speaking on behalf of our system and its opera companies, Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Company and Mississippi Power Company. The Southern syster pletely interconnected and co-ordinated pool of long standing, serv of 120,000 square miles in four states and having a peak to date of 80 a principal transmission voltage of 230 kv. We wish to oppose the enactment of S. 1472, S. 2139 or S. 2140 b legislation would not promote its stated objectives1 but indeed wo opposite effect. The bills would create serious threats to reliable power systems. Proper planning of system additions would be crippl lines would either not be built, would be unduly delayed or lin voltage would be used. New and burdensome competitive problem ent in the legislation and new obstacles would be placed in the way state regulation. Excellent co-ordination is being achieved now a systems in the nation on the basis of enlightened technology, wit made generally available to smaller systems, both public and priva FPC's present authority to order interconnections. We briefly detail our objections below: 1. System planning would be impeded.—A truly reliable power sys and developed within acceptable economic bounds, requires the exe nical planning skill by those intimately familiar with the individu istics of the area, together with the exercise of managerial pru planning ordinarily does not provide any "excess" transmission c the rare exceptions being of only one or two years' duration. principle has been proven by the successful experience of completely power pools, such as the Southern system, both in reliability of economy of operation. However, in the view of those not having de edge of the system characteristics, such transmission lines could af "excess" capacity. Demands for the use of such "excess" by other through "common carrier" requirements or ordered by FPC ruling, sarily involve serious risks of catastrophic power outages since t of this capacity would remove the margins required to meet conting own system. It is important to note that the "interstate" transmission lines proposed legislation do not connote merely interconnections with between sister companies across state lines. Such "interstate" lines would include, under current FPC interpretations, any and al lines in an interconnected system operating in parallel-among ample, a line as short as twenty miles connecting a generating pla load. The Southern system has over 2,500 miles of 230 kv lines of v 150 miles are for interconnections with neighboring systems. Thus requirement would impose new controls upon the system's interna mission lines (already of proven worth), without any real ben being realized thereby. 1 As recited in S. 2139: “*** to encourage and facilitate the const high-voltage electric transmission lines which are in the public interest and in construction of such lines in order to help make electric energy availabl nation in ample amounts, at low cost, and on fair and reasonable terms." |