operation of hydroelectric project works. The regulations require all applicants for new hydroelectric power project licenses to include an exhibit showing their efforts to protect and enhance natural, historic, scenic and recreational values in locating rights-of-way and transmission facilities. The exhibit must include maps, photographs, or drawings to describe the location, the architectural design, landscaping and other treatment of the project works. Guidelines, issued as an appendix to the order, are designed to provide an indication of the basic principles to be applied in the planning and design of electric power transmission facilities. The exhibit must also show measures to be taken during construction and operation of the project to prevent or minimize damage to the environment and to preserve and enhance the project's scenic values. In preparing the exhibit, the applicant must consult with or consider comments submitted by Federal, state and local agencies or organizations and individuals having an interest in the natural, historic and scenic values of the project area. The guidelines attached to the order cover selection and clearing of rights-of-way routes; the location of transmission towers and overhead lines; the design of transmission towers; the maintenance of transmission line rights-of-way; possible secondary uses of rightsof-way; the location of appurtenant above-ground facilities; and drawings showing the preferred method for planning and designing the facilities and for selecting and clearing rights-of-way. The order became effective on January 1, 1971.

ORDER NO. 420: "ACCOUNTING TREATMENT FOR LAND HELD FOR FUTURE UTILITY USE AND FOR PROFITS OR LOSSES REALIZED THROUGH SALES OF THOSE LANDS," ISSUED JANUARY 7, 1971. 36 FED. REG. 507 (JAN. 14, 1971)

Order No. 420 amended the Uniform System of Accounts and annual report forms for all classes of jurisdictional electric utilities and natural gas companies to encourage electric utilities and natural gas companies to acquire land for long-range utility needs. The order, which relates to accounting changes and comparable rate treatment, deletes the requirement that a utility has a "definite plan" for use of required land and permits rate consideration of land acquired under long-range planning. Of the three alternative methods for accounting treatment contained in the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission selected the one in which land costs are allowed in the rate base, and gains or losse pass to the ratepayers upon final disposition of the land. Under the method adopted, carrying charges are not to be capitalized. The new regulations became effective January 1, 1971.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ISSUED IN DOCKET NO. R-417; "DISPOSAL OF INTERESTS IN LANDS WITHIN LICENSED PROJECTS," APRIL 7, 1971. 36 FED. REG. 7020 (APRIL 13, 1971)

The rulemaking notice proposed to simplify procedures for the disposal of lands within FPC-licensed hydroelectric power projects and to assure that environmental protection principles are observed in the course of any such transfers. Under the proposed rules, all cases would be reviewed to determine any special considerations involved, such as potential environmental problems. Routine applications for transfer that present no environmental risk would be processed by the Commission's staff and routed to the Secretary of the FPC for issuance of appropriate orders. Applications with power plant siting or special environmental considerations would continue to be handled under regular Commission procedures. Under the proposed rules, the instrument of conveyance of interest in licensed project lands would reserve to the licensee the right to use the lands for project purposes, and the instrument would also contain a covenant providing that the use of the lands will not endanger health, create a nuisance, or otherwise be incompatible with the overall FPC project recreational use requirements. Final action has not been taken by the Commission.

Under the amended Federal Water Pollution Control Act, applicants for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity resulting in a discharge into a navigable water of the United States must furnish the licensing or permitting agency with certification of reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will not violate applicable water quality standards. The rulemaking notice proposed the manner by which licensees will comply with the statutory requirement to furnish certification that they will not violate applicable water quality standards. The certifications would be filed as exhibits in support of project license applications and applications for amendment of license involving construction of project works

resulting in discharges into U.S. navigable waters. Final action has not been taken by the Commission.

ORDER NO. 438: "RELIABILITY OF ELECTRIC SERVICE,' ISSUED SEPTEMBER 17, 1971. 36 FED. REG. 18947 (SEPT. 24, 1971)

Order No. 438 prescribed new weekly fuel report forms for use by electric utilities or suppliers, whether investor owned, publicly owned, or cooperatively owned, during periods of emergency due to limited fuel supplies. One form pertains to coal-fired generating plants, and the other form applies to plants using oil as a principal fuel. Under the order, a fuel emergency will exist when a utility's fuel supplies for power generation reach a level at which projected operations or reliability of electric service are threatened. Once an initial report is filed, the utility is to submit weekly reports to the FPC thereafter until the emergency is ended. As noticed, the information to be provided is designed to assist in the discharge of federal and state air quality management programs to help assure proper utilization and conservation of the Nation's natural resources; to provide for the collection in a timely manner of necessary fuel supply information to meet emergencies affecting reliability of electric service in the U.S.; to promote coordination among governmental agencies and electric utilities to solve the fuel supply problem for electric generation, if, when, and where the problem arises; and to assist the FPC generally in the administration of the Federal Power Act. The order became effective on September 17, 1971, its date of issuance.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ISSUED IN DOCKET NO. R-432, "MONTHLY REPORT OF COST AND QUALITY OF FUELS FOR STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANT, NOVEMBER 26, 1971. 36 FED. REG. 23163 (DEC. 4, 1971)

The rulemaking notice was proposed, after consultation with the Office of Emergency Preparedness, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget, to collect, by means of a new Form No. 423, monthly data on the cost and quality of fuels received at steam generating plants of electric utilities. As noticed, all electric utilities would be required to file a separate form for each steam-electric plant with capacity of 25 megawatts or more; the forms would be due 35 days after the end of the month covered; the Information submitted by the electric utilities on Form 423 would be reported on confidential basis under § 3 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), and under § 301(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825; and however, the data received may be composited and made available to the public and other Government agencies in a manner which would not compromise the confidentiality of the form. The information would be used to maintain current analyses of the energy and fuel supply situation and its effects on the cost of power. The reports would also provide timely data on a comparable basis for each type of fuel by quality determinants, thus facilitating evaluation of fuel supply developments which may affect the reliability of electric service, emergency preparedness, and the environmental improvement programs for various air quality control regions in the country. Final action has not been taken by the Commission.

Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for a very excellent statement, a very thought-provoking statement.

Thank you for your patience in permitting me, and other members of the committee to interrupt your statement, to ask questions in the course of your presentation.

I have a number of other questions, but I will not pursue them at length. I wish instead to defer to my colleagues, Senator Stafford, and Senator Buckley, who have not yet had an opportunity to discuss this matter before you, but before I do, I do have one question.

You made reference to Greene County, and to the situation that had been created by it.

Of course, the AEC has proceeded on the assumption that they will have to comply with Calvert Cliffs, and has proceeded to staff up on that basis, and has entered no appeal.

The Federal Power Commission has taken a different tack, and the point I am making, really has nothing to do with the value of your

judgment in this respect, but rather how you would visualize that these two peer agencies are going to reconcile their points of view.

Is the Supreme Court going to do it, or is some agency going to do it, is NEPA going to do it, because you and the AEC are going in different and divergent directions.

Chairman NASSIKAS. Could I refer this question to General Counsel because the issues are pending before us, not because I do not have a proposal. I do not think I should state what my legal thinking is in a case that is before us.

Senator BAKER. Let me hasten to say, if you in fact have a proceeding before you, in your hearing capacity involving this position, I will withdraw my question, I don't want to impose on your position to decide.

Chairman NASSIKAS. I do not think I want to answer, but I think General Counsel could be helpful to you. That would not affect me. Mr. GOOCH. Senator Baker, the Calvert Cliffs decision, in reviewing the Atomic Energy Commission's procedures, did not affect the Federal Power Commission's regulations.

In our view, our regulations are wholly in accord with the Calvert Cliffs decision. It is true the AEC did elect a different procedure, but the AEC relies on the expertise of the Federal Power Commission in their proceedings.

Greene County, in our view, imposes not only on the Federal Power Commission, but also on the ICC, and perhaps the Department of Transportation, a procedural requirement, which, in part, the AEC has voluntarily accepted. But in our view, the AEC was not required to accept that procedure. The AEC does not have the same situation that we have. In my view, the Commission is not obligated to follow the AEC procedures.

Senator BAKER. I think that is clearly so. That is why you are peer agencies, so you can make separate opinions, but sooner or later, somebody will have to decide which course is right.

Do you know what CEQ has stated about this?

Mr. GooсH. Sir, I do not know what CEQ's attitude is. I have discussed various aspects of this matter with the General Counsel of CEQ, but I am not aware of any recommendations he is making in this regard.

Senator BAKER. Senator Buckley, do you have any questions of the Chairman?

Senator BUCKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I could not have come here earlier to hear your testimony, but I will read it carefully. It is a subject which interests me deeply, but a member of my staff did call my attention to one phrase you used which is one that has interested me throughout the environmental discussions we have had in the last year.

You say that the "process will undoubtedly influence some changes in environmental design features and practices and will inform the public more fully as to the environmental and social cost of these projects."

Time after time we have that phrase environmental and social cost, or economic and social tradeoffs.

It seems to me the difficulty we all labor under in making judgments is that we have not yet approached a mutually satisfactory means of measuring social costs, which are environmental costs.

I would very much appreciate any light you might give us as to the state of the art, as you see it, and if it is not very satisfactory, how you feel we should go about achieving rules of thumb, or techniques of measurement, which can be more precise.

Chairman NASSIKAS. I might begin, Senator Buckley, by suggesting that the classic cost-benefit ratio analysis that has been utilized by the utility industry for many years to determine economic and overall feasibility is no longer adequate to meet the needs of our time. What we have to build on is a cost-benefit analysis which can evaluate, if this is possible, and I do not really know if it is, the environmental factors in terms of the economic factors. We can quantify costs to start with in the event that it is necessary, as it is in most fossil-fuel plants that are being built. Take a coal plant, whether it is at Four Corners, or in Tennessee, or wherever, you have environmental protection devices built into those plants-not only one kind, but all kinds of devices. On a typical plant, let's say a $200 million fossilfuel plant with a generating capacity of about 800 megawatts, the environmental costs would be 20 to 25 percent on a quantified basis. The 25 percent on a $200 million plant amounts to $50 million, which would have to be written off over a period of 20 years. The estimated fixed charges of carrying that investment can be quantified. We have quantified that kind of thing.

With reference to the delay factor, let's say on an investment in a completed facility, because of an environmental review, the facility cannot be put on the line to generate electric power to serve the consumer. This delay factor can be quantified. So that as to some of the environmental costs, which are really social costs, we can get into a quantification. But Senator Baker asked a series of questions earlier in the hearing that I do not think really can be quantified, at least not under present knowledge. One question relates to the kind of human values we have regarding the need for a project to develop energy, to serve the economy, as opposed to the human values we have in maintaining mountains, or whatever else we have of natural beauty in the United States. This kind of thing cannot be quantified as a cost because it is subjective.

On the other hand, in this environmental net-cost benefit ratio, we have to be able to consider the consequences of a failure to certify. What is the environmental detriment of failure to certify against the environmental degradation of certifying? To me it is sort of a negative process. It is where we really can arrive at value judgment, arrive at a balancing process, and try to determine what constitutes that term, "the public interest".

Senator BUCKLEY. I intended my question to include not merely the cost of putting in the environmental protection gadgetry, but also an evaluation of some of the esthetic considerations, some of the intangibles, or the values which are involved in depriving a future generation of certain options.

In other words, there are certain things that come to nothing in economic terms today, as traditionally measured, but yet a hundred years from now will be a very large economic fact.

Chairman NASSIKAS. Let me answer it this way. I think one very important value judgment is that we have a commitment to a standard of living, and I think we have to determine whether or not 30 or 40

millions of people, whatever the number is in the United States, with a substandard of living, should have their standard of living improved. We have our commitment to universities, our commitment to educational programs, our commitment to eliminate poverty, these kinds of social value, which, again, I think are something we cannot quantify. Maybe it is a feeling of human compassion. So how do you do it?" I don't like to end up with a question, Senator Buckley.

Senator BUCKLEY. I think this does underscore the problem that we face in the NEPA type situation, because it does involve in the last analysis value judgments, and perhaps we have not as yet as a society reached sufficient consensus.

Chairman NASSIKAS. I mentioned earlier the other option. It is an untenable option to me right now. That is the option of stopping our growth, and that is exactly what will have to be done in the event that we overemphasize some of the other subjective value judgments, and in the event that we decide that the only way you can maintain the integrity of our physical environment to the detriment of our total human environment is to stop the expansion of economic progress in the United States. I do not know the answer.

Senator BUCKLEY. Thank you very much.

Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I cannot resist the temptation to say that although we are an advanced technological society, it is not an overstatement, I think, to say that an alternative to zero growth is the derivation of some new energy source, and what we are up against right now is that this much vaunted technology of ours is lagging by probably 30 to 50 years the legitimate demands of civilization.

These problems now could be solved, for instance, if we were not. dead in the middle of the thermodynamic energy system.

If we could get away from heat machines to produce energy, we would not have any of the problems we discussed today, but we have to contend with what we have, so if we finally reach that stage, where we can control the fusion process, then what I have tried to pinpoint and Senator Buckley has discussed in the energy field will disappear, or if Dr. Edward Teller's perception were correct, that is that the ultimate form of energy may be the utilization of the stored heat of the earth's core, and that geothermal steam naturally occurring, or induced by the detonation of very large thermonuclear devices underground in order to create heat exchangers, these things might produce results, but the fact of the matter is we do not have these facilities available, so we have to make do with what we can, but I think occasionally it is well to keep in mind what we are doing is struggling with our own scientific inadequacies, and that if we were as far advanced as society demands we should be, these problems would not occur, but we are not, and so we have to do the best we can, and NEPA is our feeble effort to quantify and describe the safeguards we have to undertake.

Senator Dole has joined us, and I wonder if he has any questions. Senator DOLE. No. I joined you so late, I have no questions. Chairman NASSIKAS. Mr. Chairman, may I say I agree with your observations. I do have the great hope that we will cope with the problems and meet the problems, let's say by the year 1990 to the year 2010. Let's take a long-range view of the problem. The solution lies in a vastly accelerated technology; and maybe a level of funding