Mr. Moss. I would like to request, in view of the fact that we are talking here of an association of public officials, that we be informed of the number who participated in voting approval of the resolution recommending this legislation. I would like to know how many States we are talking about that participated in it, how many votes were cast for it, and how many against it, to have a general understanding of what we are talking about here.

The CHAIRMAN. You are the general solicitor for the association? Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, I am.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you attend its meetings?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, I do. I attend the meetings of the executive committee and the annual conventions. I do not attend all the meetings of all the committees of the association.

The CHAIRMAN. You testified as to the action of the association on these three points that you have recommended.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir. I can furnish the information Mr. Moss requests. I do not have it with me at this moment.

The CHAIRMAN. You know how many States belong to the association, do you not?

Mr. ROBERTS. The point is that he wanted to know the actual attendance, that is, the number of States represented at each of our conventions. There are usually one or two absent.

If I correctly understand your point, you want to know the number of States there and the number of representatives from those States. Mr. Moss. And the vote on this particular resolution. I want to know what suport, actual support, the resolution had; whether it was unanimous, or by a hairline, or what.

The CHAIRMAN. You may supply that information for the record. Mr. ROBERTS. I will be happy to do so.

(The information referred to is as follows:)

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD AND UTILITIES COMMISSIONERS,

Washington, D.C., July 22, 1959.

Re H.R. 5309, H.R. 7201, and H.R. 7494, amendment of the Federal Power Act.
Hon. OREN HARRIS,

Chairman, House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN HARRIS: During hearings held on July 16 before the Subcommittee on Communications and Power on the above-entitled bills, Representative Moss requested certain information concerning the actual support within our association for the so-called Gary bill, H.R. 5309. This request is contained on page 77 of the transcript of the hearings.

Our association in annual convention in 1954 adopted a resolution establishing a special committee on legislation amending the Federal Power Act. At our 1954 convention, 44 of the 48 States were represented.

That resolution directed the special committee "to draft the necessary amendments and to submit the amendments for approval by the executive committee; and upon approval by the executive committee, the special committee is authorized and directed to arrange for the introduction of a bill ***", etc. Pursuant to this direction, the special committee presented the proposed amendments to our executive committee at a meeting held on July 8, 1955. The language of the amendments was approved by the executive committee in a resolution adopted on a voice vote and these proposals were subsequently introduced in the Congress by Congressman Gary of Virginia as H.R. 7468, 84th Congress. At this meeting of our executive committee there were present 20 members of the committee from 20 different State regulatory commissions.

At the 1955 convention of our association, the special committee on legislation amending the Federal Power Act reported to the association on its work during

the past year, including the introduction of the Gary bill and the language of that bill. It should be noted here that our association has two classes of committees ; one being our standing committees which are continuous in nature and the second being our special committees which expire at the time of our convention, unless their continuance is specifically authorized. At our 1955 convention the report of the special committee on legislation amending the Federal Power Act was received and the special committee continued. This was done on a voice vote. At our 1955 convention representatives of the regulatory commissions of all 48 of the States were present.

Since 1955 the special committee has reported in like manner at annual conventions and has been continued from year to year. At our 1956 convention, 46 States were represented; at our 1957 convention, 46 States were represented; and at our 1958 convention, 45 States were represented.

At no time since 1954 has there been any opposition expressed within our association to the recommendations of the special committee or to the association's sponsorship of the Gary bill. This bill was numbered H.R. 7468 in the 84th Congress, H.R. 2438 in the 85th Congress, and reintroduced in the 86th Congressas H.R. 5309.

The association's support most certainly was not "by a hairline" which was the inquiry of Representative Moss. On the contrary, I cannot recall any opposition ever expressed or any vote ever cast in either our executive committee or at our association convention in opposition to support of this bill on the numerous occasions that it has been before these groups.

For your additional information, the initial membership of our special com-mittee on legislation amending the Federal Power Act was composed of John B. Conly, of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, chairman; George P. Steinmetz, of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission; Justice F. Craemer, of the California Public Utilities Commission; Wade O. Martin, of the Louisiana Public Service Commission; John H. McCarthy, of the Michigan Public Service Commission; and H. Lester Hooker, of the Virginia State Corporation Commission, and myself as ex officio members. There have been certain changes in the membership of the special committee during its life by reason of the changes in personnel on the State regulatory commissions. The present membership on our special committee on legislation amending the Federal Power Act is composed of David Brackman, of the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, chairman; George P. Steinmetz, of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission; Cayce L. Pentecost, of the Tennessee Public Service Commission; Everett H. Krueger, Jr., of the Ohio Public Utilities Commission; Theodore H. Jenner, of the California Public Utilities Commission; and Judge Hooker and myself as ex officio members.

I trust that the above information supplies the necessary information requested for the record, but if there is anything additional that I may furnish please do not hesitate to call upon me.

Sincerely yours,

AUSTIN L. ROBERTS, Jr.,
General Solicitor.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. May I ask one more question?

Mr. Roberts, in regard to your license expiration, what is the purpose of putting it in a statute that upon the expiration of a license, unless the Federal Government takes over the project the previous licensee is a preferred individual insofar as getting that license renewed?

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, as I attempted to point out in my statement, there are two reasons for it. One is the possible cause of disruption in rates, where, if the present licensee does not obtain a renewal, and loses that power, he will then have to substitute for the lower cost hydroelectric power some higher cost steam generated power.

The second feature is the disruption in service, where if he does not obtain the renewal license, he will not have that source of energy and will have to find a replacement source in order to have the same capacity to supply his customers.

Now, the problem is created with the utilities presently in problems of financing and whatnot, where the investment houses look ahead to the year 1970 and beyond, depending upon how long the financing is running, to see what the condition or status of the company's energy supply and rates is going to be in the best of their knowledge into the future.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. But, Mr. Roberts, would that not in effect be granting a license in perpetuity subject only to the action of the United States to take over and make a public project out of it?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. You would not be for that sort of thing, Mr. Roberts, would you? To grant a license in perpetuity to a group, subject only to the Federal Government making a public power project out of it?

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not quite understand you. Will you repeat that?

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. I mean passing a law, here, saying that you are granting a group a license in perpetuity, subject only to the fact that the U.S. Government takes it over at the end of any of the license periods and makes a public power project out of it.

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, the right of the acquisition of the United States is not affected. As I say, as to the existing licensee

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. That is what I am talking about. That is the only condition that keeps that group, the ABC power group, from having a license in perpetuity; is it not?

Mr. ROBERTS. The present license holder would have a preferment at the expiration of the license; yes.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. And the only time that the Federal Government has that right is at the expiration of the license, unless they exercise their right of eminent domain?

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, it would be for the life of the dam or the facility.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Yes.

That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. You are strongly supporting the Gary bill; is that right?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir; I am speaking in support of the Gary bill, H.R.5309.

The CHAIRMAN. And you say your association has not had an opportunity to pass on the other two bills?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; they have not.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you quite familiar with problems of this kind from your own experience, Mr. Roberts?

Mr. ROBERTS. Fairly familiar; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Speaking for yourself, personally, what would be your reaction to the voluntary agreement approach to it, as included in the two bills offered by Mr. Metcalf and Mr. Hemphill, instead of the mandatory provisions in the Gary bill?

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, the Gary bill also recognizes agreements. On page 3, section 31 (b), there is recognized a possibility of agreements. I think all three of the bills are aimed in the same direction, are designed to try to accomplish the same objective, and I think our association, if it were put before them, would have no objection to the

other two bills, and might endorse their provisions equally with the provisions of the Gary bill.

Mr. AVERY. Mr. Chairman ?

Mr. Roberts, have you had a chance to examine 7494 and 7201? Are you familiar with them?

Mr. ROBERTS. No; I did not participate in drafting those. I have read them over and looked at them. I am not completely familiar with them.

Mr. AVERY. If you have read them over, on page 3 in the Hemphill bill, for instance, in the proviso on page 3, does that not have about the same effect as the mandatory language in the Gary bill? It negates the voluntary agreement aspect.

Mr. ROBERTS. As to the provisions for peaking service in the middle of page 3? Yes, I would say so.

Mr. AVERY. In effect, does it not make it a mandatory operation rather than a voluntary agreement? Does that not bring the bills pretty much into similarity?

Mr. ROBERTS. Pretty much. It recognizes that in those areas where the hydro is used for peaking service it would practically have the same effect.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hooker?

Mr. Hooker, you have had an occasion to be before this committee on several proposals or bills before us. We have had occasion to extend to you a welcome to this committee on this particular proposal. You have testified on the legislation heretofore.

STATEMENT OF H. LESTER HOOKER, MEMBER, STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF VIRGINIA

Mr. HOOKER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have been coming before this committee for about 25 years, and I have always received very gracious treatment and courtesy, for which I am very grateful.

My name is H. Lester Hooker, of Richmond, Va. I am a member of the State corporation commission and have been since 1924. I am a former president of the National Association of Railroad & Utilities Commissioners and, at present, a member of the executive committee and chairman of the committee on legislation of that association, and it is in the last-named capacity that I am appearing before your committee in support of the proposed amendments to part I of the Federal Power Act in H.R. 5309.

The first proposal is to amend section 10(f) to provide that charges shall be paid by the Federal Government on Federal power projects which are benefited by upstream or downstream improvements constructed by other interests. The proposed amendment provides that in those cases where any hydroelectric power project owned by the United States is benefited by the construction and operation of any reservoir by another party, the United States shall pay to the other party an annual charge, the amount of the payment to be ascertained in the same manner as charges are now determined which are paid by non-Federal interests. This, it is seen, puts them on an absolutely equal basis, which is undoubtedly fair and reasonable, and is beneficial to the public.

Under section 10 of the Federal Power Act, the Commission is given the authority to waive any licensing condition except the 50-year term in the case of a complete power project of not more than 100 horsepower capacity. Under the proposed amendment, the Federal Power Commission will have the authority to waive up to 2,000 horsepower. This amendment would relieve the Commission of the administrative burden of many small hydroelectric projects which are primarily of local concern and, also, this amendment would relieve many owners of small dams throughout the Nation of substantial burden.

Section 15 of the Federal Power Act provides that the United States may take over a licensed project at the end of the license period. Under the present law, it may have been intended to give a licenseholder the first choice to renew the license provided the United States does not desire to exercise its right of acquisition. However, this point is not clear and it is a matter of grave financial concern to companies who are seeking licenses to be permitted to construct projects or who have completed projects and desire to refinance them. It appears quite plain that the present licensee should centainly have the preference to renew its license if the Federal Government does not desire to exercise its right to acquire it.

All of these amendments, in my opinion, are decidedly in the interest of the public.

I wish to say that I concur in the testimony of our general solicitor, Mr. Roberts, and also our distinguished Congressman, Mr. Gary, of Virginia. He did introduce this bill at my request very largely, and I got him to do so at the request of our national association. If my memory serves me correctly, as I am a member of the executive committee, the question was asked how many States approved this legislation, and I am pretty certain that there was no opposition expressed by any State at any time. And this has been before our association, as you know-because the bills have been pending several years-two or three times. And I know there was no opposition from anybody on the executive committee, and I do not think there is opposition, in our association, on this legislation. If so, I have not been informed of it.

Thank you very much.

Mr. GARY. Mr. Chairman, may I say what I overlooked saying: The Federal Power Commission has recommended certain changes in the language in my bill. We consider that merely as refinements of the language, and we have no objection to it. And I would further say that I think if the committee will read the three bills, you will find that my bill is no more mandatory than the other two bills. I think they are all practically the same, with different language.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mr. Gary, the Federal Power Commission recommends the deletion of section 6 of your bill. Would you call that an improvement?

Mr. GARY. No, I spoke of language changes. And I said in the beginning that they say they are recommending the deletion of that section 6 because it is unnecessary. Now my point there is that it is merely designed to clarify the present law, and I believe it does that. But the language changes we have no objection to. I addressed myself to section 6 when I testified, but I did not address myself to the language changes. We have no objection to the language changes, which we consider as refinements of the language.