Page images
PDF
EPUB

It does provide for a mechanism within the Executive Office, either through interagency committee or some other form he may set up to effect the final decision.

It is an attempt to protect the legitimate interests of all departments. As you know, decisions on funding or anything else by committee is very difficult. Somebody has to be the focal point.

That is all.

Mr. LENNON. Thank you, Mr. Counsel.

Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. We appreciate your getting here.

Secretary LOESCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LENNON. The next witness is representing the Edison Electric Institute, Mr. Shearon Harris, chairman and president of the Carolina Power & Light Co.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, will you yield?

Mr. LENNON. Yes.

Mr. JONES. I would like to extend a very warm welcome to my friend Shearon Harris. I had the honor of serving with him in 1955 in the North Carolina Legislature, where at that time, at an early age, he showed these marks of leadership which have developed into the position he now occupies.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LENNON. I join in everything you have said and extend a cordial and hearty welcome to our long time and great friend.

Mr. Harris, are you going to follow your statement?

STATEMENT OF SHEARON HARRIS, CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT, CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., REPRESENTING THE EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE: ACCOMPANIED BY H. J. YOUNG, VICE PRESIDENT, EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest the appropriateness of my reading the first paragraph of my statement to get my identity into the record and introduce my associate, Mr. Young of the institute; and then have the rest of the statement copied into the record as though read.

Mr. LENNON. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. HARRIS. My name is Shearon Harris. I am chairman of the board and president of Carolina Power & Light Co. and chairman of the board of the Edison Electric Institute.

Mr. Chairman, I have on my left at the witness table Mr. H. J. Young, vice president of the Edison Electric Institute, who is in many respects a great deal more technically competent to deal with the matters we are discussing today; and it may be if you ask me some technical questions I may wish to have Mr. Young answer them.

I am appearing today on behalf of the Edison Electric Institute. principal trade association of the investor-owned electric light and power companies of this country. Its 186-member companies serve approximately 77 percent of all electric customers in the United States. Before discussing any specific proposal concerning coastal zone management, I would like to mention a few facts which illustrate the importance of this legislation to the electric utility industry.

The electric utility industry in this country is the largest industry in the United States from the standpoint of capital investment. At the end of 1970, he capital investment of the industry was $93.5 billion and it provides the people of the United States with the most reliable supply of electric energy of any nation in the world.

There are presently some 90 major electric powerplants located in the coastal zone of this country, and making use, to greater or lesser degree, of waters from the oceans and Great Lakes for cooling condensers. These plants represent some 46 million kilowatts of powerproducing capacity.

This year, we expect 216 electric generating units, aggregating 37.4 million kilowatts, to come into commercial operation. Of these, 43 units will be 300.000 kilowatts or more in capacity and 17 will be installed at new sites. Six of the new sites are located in the coastal zone and represent over 40 percent of the new capacity being installed at new sites this year.

The generation of electricity has certain areas of impact upon the environment. Steam powerplants require heat, either from the combustion of fossil fuels or from nuclear energy. The excess heat from the process is emitted into the atmosphere, either directly or through water. As powerplants have increased in size, and particularly with the construction of large nuclear powerplants, there has been considerable concern over the effect heat discharges might have on cooling

waters.

Electric utility companies have shared this concern, and have undertaken considerable research to help engineers design and operate powerplants in such a way as to have the minimum adverse effect on aquatic life. A variety of techniques is available to assist nature moderate the temperature of cooling water discharges and these are being used throughout the country.

We would be glad to provide the subcommittee with detailed information on this subject, particularly as it relates to oceans and other large bodies of water, if it is desired.

It is worth remembering in this connection that such powerplants consume relatively negligible quantities of water, but simply take water from a natural body and return it again.

Electric energy is basic to the solution of a wide range of our environmental problems. Millions of kilowatts of additional generating capacity will be needed to operate new systems to purify water, clean up the air, recycle reusable materials, dispose of waste, and power rapid transit.

What is needed is a continuous expansion of electric energy, while making every practicable effort to minimize any negative impact on the environment.

Until technology completely eliminates any negative impact, we must work out livable compromises between energy needs and preservation of the environment.

In any of the bills under consideration, the coastal zones areas of some 30 States would be affected by coastal zone management plans, assuming that all coastal States avail themselves of the grant programs. These include many of our more populous States and accordingly will affect the location and siting of powerplants, which are significant

users of coastal lands and water. Delays in powerplant construction have a serious impact on the Nation's energy needs. It takes 4 to 8 years to build modern powerplants, 4 for fossil fuel and up to 8 for nuclear power.

In comparing H.R. 2493 and H.R. 9229, we do not find that the distinctions between the two bills are of particular importance to electric companies with the exception of section 316 of H.R. 9229.

Section 316 provides for a $50,000 fine for each violation of any regulation issued pursuant to the provisions of that bill. Penalties of this nature are sometimes found in pollution control statutes but would be quite unusual and probably unnecessary in a grant-in-aid program such as proposed here. We suggest the elimination of that section.

Both bills place the responsibility of developing coastal zone plans and programs squarely where it belongs-on the States.

In developing this plan, section 306 (c) (1) requires the full participation of all relevant Federal, State and local agencies. Accordingly, if a State has an agency which has the authority to certify sites for electric powerplants, that agency could participate in the development of the State plan and program. This is important because several States (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, and Washington) already have developed special procedures for the certification of powerplants and other States (Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) are currently considering legislative proposals on this subject. Section 306 (c) (7) requires that the plan and program be consistent with applicable implementation plans of the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the Solid Waste Disposal Act. This coordination will be helpful, especially since the Clean Air Act and amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act presently being considered by Congress contemplate land use considerations in these programs. It would be unfortunate for a State to develop a coastal zone plan and program and to have the essential parts of the program rendered ineffective because of an inability to obtain air or water approvals for the use of that land.

One thing that does concern us is that other programs which have started as a simple grant program under State administration have tended to become more federalized as time passes. For example, in the original air and water quality laws. the States were given grants if they set up appropriate procedures. But there has been a definite trend to centralize more and more in Washington the setting and approval of air and water standards and criteria.

We hope that Congress will make it clear that the Federal Government's responsibility in the area of coastal zone and land use planning is limited to encouraging the States to develop and implement wellconceived, economically oriented plans. The management of coastal zones can be most effectively planned at the State and local level.

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER BILLS

Summarizing our thought on the coastal zone bills, let me say that the approach they take appears reasonable and worthy of careful consideration. What concerns us is that there are three different con

cepts of land use planning affecting electric companies under consideration by the Congress at the present time: H.R. 2449 and H.R. 4332, which contemplate statewide land use plans for all 50 States; the coastal zone bills, H.R. 2493 and H.R. 9229, which contemplate partial planning for about 30 States; and powerplant siting bills such as H.R. 6970 and H.R. 5277.

Would the plans and programs developed under coastal zone legislation be part of a State land use program? Would the Department of Commerce, administering a coastal zone grant program, use the same guidelines as the Department of Interior if the latter were administering a State land use grant program?

Would the Department of Commerce recognize a State powerplantsiting agency as continuing to have that authority after adoption of a coastal zone plan?

Section 313 (b) (3) of H.R. 2495, and section 307 (b) (3) of H.R. 9229, require that any application for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity in a coastal zone must provide a certification from the appropriate State agency that the proposed activity complies with the State coastal zone management plan and program.

Virtually every powerplant needs some sort of Federal permit or license today, especially under the ambitious new water permit program being launched by the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency under the Refuse Act of 1899.

Yet, these bills contemplate another certification requirement, in addition to that required of Federal applicants by section 21(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The continued proliferation of permit and certification requirements is a growing burden upon electric companies already striving hard to get the necessary clearances to construct needed electric power facilities.

We support the objectives and general approach of both H.R. 2493 and H.R. 9229. We hope that the legislative history will clearly recognize the importance of a growing electric energy supply to the well-being of our Nation, and that many electric powerplants will have to be built in coastal and estuarine zone areas.

The Congress should emphasize that State plans and programs under these bills should include reasonable allowances for future needed powerplants. We hope that if any legislation is eventually enacted, it will be harmonized with existing legislation, and with other legislative proposals now being considered by the Congress.

We are concerned over the certification requirements, in view of the many clearances already required before construction of needed powerplants may commence.

It has been a pleasure to present the views of the Edison Electric Institute to this distinguished subcommittee.

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that the prepared statement itself is intended to support the spirit and the purpose of the legislation under consideration, and particularly the more recently introduced version, H.R. 9229.

The investor-owned electric industry of the Nation recognizes the need for orderly planning in the use of land resources.

We leave it to the wisdom of the Congress to determine the order in which you will deal with overall land use and land management planning.

Also, there is under consideration in the Congress at this time, legislation that deals with powerplant siting as well as the coastal zone legislation.

Ultimately, depending upon the progress of each, there must be, of course, some coordination between these overlapping approaches. We do not suggest to you the order in which this will come about and we recognize that you will coordinate this effectively.

We also come to endorse the basic philosophy of this legislation because we like the concept of encouraging the States to take action and concept of keeping the administration of these matters at the State level.

There will be variations that will occur all over the Nation with varying circumstances requiring varying approaches.

With the encouragement and the assistance of the Federal Government, the States can be quite competent to deal with this.

Let me come specifically to the direct interest of the electric utility industry, Mr. Chairman.

The prepared statement contained a reference to the fact that we now have in this country some 90 major electric powerplants that are located in coastal zones as may be defined by this legislation; but I think the important consideration is the fact that with the growing demand for electric power in our country, we are now building powerplants of much larger size than we have ever before.

These powerplants have vast requirements with respect to disposing of unused heat. The conventional way of disposing of the unused heat discharge from these powerplants is to put it on the surface of large areas of water and let it evaporate into the atmosphere.

The requirements of the future are recognized by knowledgeable people. If we are going to maintain the quality of life that this country has come to enjoy; if we are going to maintain the employment opportunities that we as a nation are committed to; if we are going to power the cleanup of waste disposal with sewage treatment plants that are necessary; if we are going to create through a viable economy the resources that will support our commitments to education and cultural and welfare and medical assistance, then we are going to need in 1980 about twice as much power as we provided for the whole Nation in 1970.

In 1990, we are going to need about four times as much as in 1970. By the year 2000, we will need about eight times as much as 1970. These powerplants have to go somewhere. With the increased amount of power capacity and larger powerplants that are coming into use, naturally a great deal of this power siting is moving to the available areas of water in the coastal zones.

Mr. Chairman, you are quite familiar with one of the unique installations which is now under construction in your own district in Brunswick County, N.C., where probably for the first time in the world, as far as we know, our company has sited two large nuclear power units some 6 or 7 miles from the coast; and the cooling water discharge from our condensers in that plant are channeled under the inland waterway and out into the open ocean, some quarter of a mile offshore.

When this plant of 1,600,000 kilowatts of capacity is in full operation, it will require something close to one and a half billion gallons of water a day running through the condensers to carry away the unusual

« PreviousContinue »