Planning for reliable and economic electric service would be greatly hampered by the proposed legislation. Utilities cannot plan individual lines but must plan a complete and co-ordinated transmission system. New generating units must be planned on the basis that associated lines can be built where and when needed. Licensing the associated transmission lines would in effect give the Commission control and veto power on plans for generation. The generating units must be determined as to type, size, and location at least four years in advance of use. After such determination, detailed transmission studies require about a year and an additional three years of elapsed time is necessary before the lines are completed and usable. It is almost inescapable that parties seeking to share in the use of proposed lines will demand extensive hearings and a considerable delay in authorization (two years in the case of S. 2139) for each line could result. Even with the risk of shortcutting transmission studies, lines could be delayed at least eighteen months beyond the required in-service date. Accordingly, it may be necessary to provide for an excess in generating capacity amounting to some 15 to 20 percent of system load greater than otherwise would be required, based on Southern's annual growth of around nine percent per year.

The responsibility of each utility company to meet its load requirements is an inescapable one. The task is unique in each instance. No outside agency is in a position to make the necessary decisions on the number, voltage, capacity, routing, and switching of transmission lines to assure reliable service and reasonable cost as well as the people who work continually with the utility and its system. In effect, the proposed legislation would leave the licensed utility company with full responsibility for the reliable supply of electric service but would take from it the authority to carry out the planning and managerial decisions essential to assure such electric service reliability.

2. Construction of EHV facilities would be delayed and discouraged.-The process of system planning is a time consuming one. Adding the delay inherent in licensing procedures (to say nothing of the adversary procedures that can develop through intervention, disputes over "excess" capacity, and the like) would do the very opposite of "avoiding delays in construction," the asserted purpose of the legislation.

Such long delays would prove crippling. There is no assurance that the postponement would be limited to two years when review and appellate procedures are availed of. Rather than risk such a wait, those subject to the licensing jurisdiction would be encouraged to build larger amounts of 161 kv transmission, or lower voltage, in order to avoid the hazards to reliability and economy which are inherent in the proposed certifications. This would bring about a reversal of the present trend toward expanded coordination. These delays, which should not be imposed on a responsible utility company seeking to meet the load obligations of its system, could be used as a weapon to compel compliance with conditions unacceptable and, perhaps, not otherwise enforceable against the regulated

company.

Right-of-way acquisition may be delayed also. While in our system's area the existing state condemnation laws and procedures have proven satisfactory for right-of-way acquisition, we recognize that the proposed right of condemnation through federal courts, taken by itself, might be of help in some instances in securing rights-of-way. However, in combination with other features of the bills, the net effect on procurement of rights-of-way would be harmful. All purchases of rights-of-way would need to be made after publicity on the routing, timing, and need for each line. Therefore, the cost of right-of-way would be increased, the purchase thereof delayed and a much greater percentage of the right-of-way would need to be secured through condemnation.

3. Regulation by existing state bodies would be made difficult or sacrificed entirely. The certification of lines as proposed in the bills would necessarily involve determinations of economic feasibility. The pre-emption by FPC of the certification of convenience and necessity for lines over 200 kv would make extremely difficult, or take away entirely, the historical jurisdiction of the stat on such questions as the regulation and control of capital structures, rate ba and the allocation of service territory. Economic feasibility cannot be d mined apart from rate questions and the introduction of such rate quest the certificating procedures would prolong the procedures and leave bodies having responsibility in such areas, at the very best, in a state doubt and confusion. This is a radical departure from existing na 4. Burdensome competition would be fostered and controversy must be recognized that the investor-owned utility industry

competition from federal government power marketing agencies, municipalities and other public bodies. The "common carrier" prov proposed legislation (S. 1472) or the FPC's conditioning power cou availed of by competitors to require the transmission facilities of t companies to be used as a vehicle for transportation of power t competing body to take away the customers of the regulated co regulated company may be forced to allocate part of its system to otherwise inadequate system of the competitor. The legislation mu ered in the existing context of federal power marketing legislatio competitors of the regulated companies are granted a preferential receipt of government-generated power.

S. 1472 and S. 2140 would, in effect, authorize the Commission to investor-owned utilities the burden and risk of supplying comp owned or REA-financed systems with transmission connections whi undoubtedly would, be used to take away customers of the investor ties. The legislation could be used to enable such competing system tax-free and abnormally low interest cost status to extend their servi their existing markets. For example, an REA-financed generatin mission (G & T) cooperative in the State of Alabama has already plans to extend its service to nine distributing cooperatives no Alabama Power Company as soon as such G & T can obtain the ge transmission capacity to do so. With the guidance and participa seven of such distributing cooperatives have already entered into tracts to take all their power requirements from the G & T when power to them. With the proceeds of a $20,350,000 REA loan th is now engaged in the construction of a steam generating plant displace the service of Alabama Power Company to certain of suc cooperatives. Should S. 1472 or S. 2140 be adopted, it is probable would be pressed to require Alabama Power Company to provide line connections for the competitive benefit of the G & T cooperati tion of the Company's securing a certificate of convenience and lines it proposes for the purpose of serving its present customers o ing with utilities in neighboring states.

It is not difficult, then, to imagine that the proposed certificat will bring about constant interventions before FPC, with allega serve capacity in the regulated company transmission lines is "excess", or attempting to require planning of the regulated sys way as to permit the competitor an advantage in taking the cus regulated company. We note that the statement filed in suppo posed legislation by the REA Administrator seeks exemption of and cooperatives" from the licensing provisions and that the the Interior has sought the exemption of federal government p from those same licensing provisions. These requested exemptio pletely defeat the "comprehensive" planning which the legislati to advance, while magnifying and enlarging the competitive thre exists without the exemptions, but the efforts by REA and Int exemptions underscore the difficulties of the competitive position legislation would place the investor-owned companies. The troversies, which can readily be forecast, are undesirable as a ma power policy.

5. Available procedures are effective. The information and nels now available to FPC, its control of interstate and wholesal its powers with respect to interconnections under Section 202 Power Act provide everything that is necessary for FPC to guid EHV construction and to assure any needed interconnections. interconnection, through enlightened self-interest, have made no The proposed bills are unnecessary and defeat their own purpose.

OHIO ED Akron, Ohio, Au

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce,
New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: We wish to express our opposition 2139 and S. 2140, hearings on which have recently been con Committee.

Each of these bills would vest in the Federal Power Commiss the construction and operation of extra high voltage (EHV) tra

Both S. 1472 and S. 2140 would prohibit construction and operation of such lines without prior approval of F.P.C., while S. 2139, which adopts the so-called "voluntary" approach, could prevent construction of transmission facilities for a period of two years.

Under any of the above bills it is reasonable to expect that an applicant for approval, even though ultimately successful, will be required to experience the type of delays always inherent in the regulatory process. Such delays will serve only to impede the orderly development of not only the applicant's system, but the system or systems with which it is proposed to be interconnected.

The supposed objectives of these bills is to promote optimum economy and service reliability through the continuous strengthening of the nation's network of interconnected transmission lines. These goals are as important to persons within the electric utility industry as they are to our regulatory agencies and the consumers our industry is dedicated to serve. Our opposition therefore, is based also on our view that the prerogative of deciding how these objectives can best be achieved should, unless somehow abused, remain with those persons who are directly responsible for their achievement.

Many examples of the success of the efforts being made to strengthen various interconnections and power pools were given in the testimony of witnesses who appeared before your Committee. Their testimony amply demonstrated that all segments of the industry have been able to cooperate fully in their efforts to achieve results beneficial to all participants. To suggest now that an intermediary, such as F.P.C., is needed to settle differences that may arise is to ignore the exemplary record of progress being made. What is worse, it may perhaps invite the differences the industry has so far been able to avoid.

The responsibility for providing the most reliable and economical electric service possible is first and foremost the reesponsibility of the industry itself. In our judgment the industry must therefore be in a position to freely decide how that responsibility can best be discharged. And as long as this prerogative is not abused, and the prevailing evidence indicates quite the contrary to be true, legislation which would tend to inhibit the exercise of the prerogative is not only unnecessary but may well be harmful.

We therefore urge your committee not to recommend S. 1472, S, 2139, or S. 2140 for passage.

Very truly yours,

D. BRUCE MANSFIELD.

STATEMENT OF CITIZENS OPPOSED TO POWER TOWERS, READINGTON CHAPTER, INC., FOR SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS ON S. 1472, S. 2139, AND S. 2140 Citizens Opposed to Power Towers, Readington Chapter, Inc. wholeheartedly supports the intentions of S. 1472 and S. 2140 with one exception. Our membership of over 400 persons firmly believes that interstate electric transmission lines should be subject to review and approval by the Federal Power Commission, but that federal eminent domain right for the private power companies to build such lines are neither necessary nor desirable. We oppose S. 2139 because it does not give the federal government any real control over a serious situation which is virtually unregulated at present.

Our own experience with the half million volt Keystone line in New Jersey illustrates the necessity for regulation at the federal level. During the past year, in cooperation with other citizen groups in New Jersey, we participated in extensive hearings before the New Jersey Public Utility Commission regarding Public Service Electric and Gas Company's transmission lines associated wi the Keystone project. Our group in common with the others opposed ru new transmission lines through still unspoiled areas of our State. We fe these lines should be installed underground if at all possible, and it n existing corridors of blight created by railroad lines and existing to should be utilized. We recognize the need for additional electric pow rapidly growing state and we fully understand that such power mu ported from the generating sites to the load areas where it will be Experts advised that underground high voltage transmission li long uninterrupted lengths would serve their purpose better and economically if direct current were used. The high cost lines is in the conversion equipment at each end of the line. be generated as alternating current, converted to direct curre and then reconverted to alternating current for consumption transmission line, the lower the per mile cost. Material

buried DC cable are less than for AC cable because DC requires c ductors instead of three. Excluding conversion costs, DC cable insta are roughly comparable to those of overhead lines. The overall co ground AC installations is high due to the necessity for reactor sta quent intervals (every 15 to 20 miles at 500 kv) to compensate for in the cable insulation.

DC is technically superior to AC for major interconnections beca version equipment itself acts to dampen giant power surges like spread the blackout throughout the northeast last November. The major AC interconnections was clearly demonstrated at that time power pool was not affected by the blackout because its interconne troubled areas were weak and broke immediately under the power there been high capacity interties the snowballing effect of the bla very well have spread through the entire PJM system down to Was itself. Also a line can carry more power as DC than as AC. Hence Edison's 345 kv AC cable could carry 500 kv as DC.

The hearings before the New Jersey Public Utility Commission Public Service applied for the right to exercise the power of eminent the unacquired 5% of the lands along their Holland Branchburg Actually Public Service's responsibility for the transmission line Delaware River in Holland Township, Hunterdon County, New transmission line itself starts at Juniata Station near Harrisburg, and runs for over 100 miles without interruption to the Branchbu Station near Centerville in Branchburg Township, Somerset County Only the last 20 miles of the line are in New Jersey.

There was no point in arguing for direct current transmission since the New Jersey PUC's jurisdiction does not cover the major portion. Nor did it make sense either engineering or cost-wise t use of direct current for just the few miles in New Jersey.

Therefore the idea of proposing direct current for the main Ke mission line from Harrisburg was abandoned and a DC system was the 70 miles Branchburg-Suffern intertie with Consolidated Edison all but the last couple of miles of this line would be in New Jers cision was made with reluctance because everyone realized that lines should be direct current. Ironically Public Service cited this ment for the main Keystone line as a purely selfish action on th objectors.

Under present conditions there is no real possibility for review a of interstate transmission lines. Yet the safety and welfare of the may be in serious danger if the proposed nation-wide power grid alternating current. The advantages of DC transmission need t more fully, but this cannot be done on a piecemeal basis by individu latory agencies. The planning of such an interstate grid can only regulated at the federal level. This is obviously a job for the I Commission.

Our organization feels that federal eminent domain powers for lines are both unnecessary and undesirable. Our states have diffe regarding eminent domain for good and sufficient reasons. Mos nation-wide power grid will be built by private power companies, individual states and with access to eminent domain powers thro regulatory agencies. If the states so wish, eminent domain po granted automatically for FPC licensed projects without the ne hearings at the state level. But this should remain a prerogative ing state. It is not the purpose of the FPC to promote the busine private utilities. The federal interstate highway system is bei out the use of federal eminent domain powers. AT&T installed a telephone cable all the way across the continent without any er power at all. Our private utilities are not helpless. They can do the powers they have now.

Nor should the problem of out-of-state companies constructing where they are not recognized prove a serious problem. The lin system are being built in cooperation with neighboring utilities. stone project, partner companies are responsible for construction lines in their own areas. In fact Public Service was highly in idea that they should tell Consolidated Edison to accept a DC tra for the last couple of miles of the Branchburg-Suffern line which New York state.

Granting federal eminent domain powers would be undesirable in that it would tend to encourage the power companies in their proliferation of overhead lines. The American power industry has a world-wide reputation for being ultraconservative. In our experience there appears to be an entrenched mental resistance to change similar to that which helped bring the railroad industry to its present sorry condition. This was clearly demonstrated both at the PUC hearings in New Jersey and at the Senate Commerce Committee hearings on Senator Neuberger's bills on underground power lines just this summer. The private. power companies are strongly resisting all public sentiment to bury transmission : lines, and are doing everything in their power to delay the proposed research program.

To maintain its competitive position with respect to other fuel industries the private power companies must keep costs down. Overhead power lines are cheaper than underground simply because so little underground work has been done. Overhead transmission lines have been in use for 50 years and they are still in good condition. They perform their function very well. Eminent domain powers provide ready access to land for rights-of-way, which is the only real problem the companies have with overhead lines. Disgruntled customers cannot change their source of electric power. In short, except for the wave of public sentiment against obsolete overhead technology despoiling the remaining natural beauty of the nation, there is simply no incentive to bury transmission lines other than in cities where overhead right-of-way costs are prohibitive. Granting federal eminent domain powers would make the companies even more immune to public sentiment.

It seems likely that the taxpayers will have to pay for burying existing overhead lines. The public is going to be reluctant to do this while new overhead lines are not only being permitted but encouraged. The time to cease building overhead lines is now. Otherwise there will be a tremendous duplication of effort and expense.

OHIO VALLEY ELECTRIC CORP.,

August 11, 1966.

Re Committee on Commerce hearings on bills S. 1472, S, 2139, and S. 2140 to' amend the Federal Power Act to cover certification of high-voltage transmission lines by FPC.

Hon. FRANK J. LAUSCHE,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR LAUSCHE: It has been brought to my attention that during the testimony by Mr. Philip H. Hartung on July 20, 1966, you questioned him as to whether the coal supply for the new Keystone Plant would be deep mine or strip mined coal. When Mr. Hartung stated that he believes strip coal would amount to less than 5 per cent, you stated, "I hope that is true with your pool. It has not been true with the pool in Ohio, down at Kyger Creek on the Ohio river. The land has been butchered by them, some effort has been made but it was not adequate to restore the coverage of the land."

Kyger Creek generating station is owned, as you know, by the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation, the sole supplier of power to the great Atomic Energy Commission gaseous diffusion plant at its Portmouth Project.

All of the coal burned at the Kyger Creek station is deep mined, about onehalf coming from a deep mine near Powhatan Point, Ohio, on the Ohio river, and the remainder from a deep mine in West Virginia along the Monongahela river. Over the years there has been strip mining in the vicinity of the Kyger Creek station by people having no connection with OVEC, and none of this coal has been used at this station.

The policies which OVEC follows contemplate that there may exist many conditions under which it is in the interest of the people of any of our states, if they have coal resources, to have these developed by strip mining. But OVEC also recognizes that it is never good social-economics or good public policy to have the land of any area butchered in the process of mining any available coal.

Since it is clear that OVEC has no connection with any butchering of land directly or indirectly, I would appreciate it if in justice to my company you would make clear on the public record of the hearings that the allusions to OVEC in your remarks were based on mistaken identity of the interests responsible for the disreputable condition in which the land was left.

With my best regards, I am,

Sincerely yours,

PHILIP SPORN.