Page images





Dr. James H. Wright is Director of the Environmental Systems Department of the Westinghouse Electric Corporation. In this position he is responsible for organizing and managing a unique team of environmental experts involved in analyzing and interpreting environmental problems associated with electric power production and transmission and in assisting utilities and government regulatory agencies in solving these problems. His Department has conducted environmental studies for industry or governmental agencies in over half of the fifty states in the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Italy, France, Romania and Japan, and many of its members are internationally recognized experts in the environmental impact of power systems operations. His Department also conducts the Westinghouse International School for Environmental Management.

Dr. Wright holds a bachelor's degree in Chemical Engineering from Texas Tech University and a master's and Ph.D. degree in chemical engineering from the University of Pittsburgh. His professional career began in the oil fields of Texas developing and operating the first

industrial desulfurization plant for natural gas and he continued his research in desulfurization of petroleum and ionizing radiation in later work at Mellon Institute of Industrial Research.

Dr. Wright joined the Westinghouse nuclear program in 1956 as a reactor physicist and has since held key positions (Manager, Advanced Reactor Systems and Technical Director, Advanced Reactors Divisions) of responsibility in designing, development and planning nuclear technology and projects. Before his present assignment, he was Senior Consultant to the Executive Vice President for Westinghouse Nuclear Energy Systems.

Dr. Wright has been working the fields of energy systems and pollution abatement in areas of design, research and development, construction, operation of energy use processes and environmental effects for more than 20 years and has published more than ninety papers in the technical literature, holding numerous patents for pollution abatement processes.

Dr. Wright is a member of several professional societies including the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, the American Chemical Society, the American Society of Engineering Education and the American Nuclear Society and is a registered professional engineer in the State of Pennsylvania. He is also a consultant to various government agencies, including the President's National Water Commission, and serves on the Committee on Power Plant Siting for the National Academy of Engineers.

Dr. Wright is a dedicated conservationist, an ardent fisherman, an amateur mountaineer and maintains an active membership in the Sierra Club, Trout Unlimited and other responsible environmental organizations.

Senator STONE. Now we will hear from F. W. Mielke, Jr., chairman, powerplant siting and land use committee, Edison Electric Institute. Mr. MIELKE. I can come back after lunch.

Senator STONE. No; 10 minutes it is.


Mr. MIELKE. I have a written statement which I would like to submit for the record, if that is all right and then submit that as though read, and I will then summarize the statement, going through it to save time.

With me at the table is Mr. David R. Toll, who is managing director and general counsel of the National Association of Electric Cos. herein Washington, D.C. I am Frederick W. Mielke, Jr., vice president and assistant to the chairman of Pacific Gas and Electric Co. My company serves gas and electricity to most of northern and central California. Today, I am appearing on behalf of the Edison Electric Institute, which is the principal trade association for the Nation's investor-owned electric utilities.

I would like to comment on both bills before you today, S. 619 and S. 984. Both of these bills have worthy objectives in expediting However, the principal cause of regulatory delays in this field is not an absence of the right kind of State land use planning laws. It is instead a number of special purpose Federal statutes which together have become a Gordian knot of regulations and procedures.

In my formal statement, I refer to a number of these Federal laws and outline the difficulties that they cause. One is the Clean Air Act and another is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and another is the Coastal Zone Management Act. Then, there is the Atomic Energy Act, with its very long and cumbersome licensing procedures and the National Environmental Policy Act, with its time consuming and costly process for environmental impact statements. Finally, there are the clearances required from many agencies, such as the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, Federal Aviation Agency, and so forth. These have been the things that, up to now, have been the main sources of regulatory delay and frustration which currently beset electric companies.

Presently, we are confronted with a new problem. That is a number of proposed nuclear moratorium measures, in various forms, at the State level. Although we believe these are, in most instances, unconstitutional, they could, if enacted, give rise to litigation, which could cause further delays in nuclear power programs. On this point, we believe the Congress should act promptly by more carefully stating the Federal preemption of regulation in this field so that these potential new sources of delay will not materialize.

We are aware, of course, that this single committee of the Senate does not have jurisdiction over all of the subjects to which I have referred, but we believe it is important that each committee in the

Congress recognize the overall impact of these various special purpose acts.

The committee, for example, has jurisdiction over the National Environmental Policy Act. I mention in my statement one helpful amendment to NEPA that this committee could very well sponsor as an aid in siting energy facilities. This would be a proviso declaring that once a particular site for an electric power facility was determined to be a permitted land use under State or local law, then a Federal agency should not be allowed to consider or second-guess that determination in a NEPA environmental impact statement. Such a prohibition against Federal second-guessing would be consistent with the philosophy expressed in section 3 of S. 984 and it would remove a needless source of delay and controversy in NEPA procedures.

Now, for some specifics on the bills before you. Both attempt to deal with the Federal procedural problems by requiring that FEA act as a coordinator and expediter. We have no quarrel in principle with this proposed requirement, but we wish to note that everything these bills require the FEA to do could simply be required by Presidential executive order without legislation.

One very harmful provision of these bills is the requirement that all Federal authorizations be obtained before the start of construction. That provision is even more restrictive than existing practice. It would lead to intolerable delays, and it should be deleted in both bills. Finally, it should be noted that the detailed additional Federal procedures proposed by these bills, unless very carefully administered, could be counterproductive by simply adding another layer of delaycausing Federal procedures. We believe, however, that much could be accomplished by a relatively simple authorization for the FEA to act as expediter and coordinator and we believe that this should be done as soon as possible, either by executive order or by a simplified version of the legislation before you.

These steps alone, however, are clearly not enough. The root causes of regulatory delay can be attacked only by dealing directly with the several single-purpose acts that in the aggregate now tie up the building of new power facilities. There are two ways of dealing with these laws. One is by amending each single-purpose act to remove language which is needlessly restrictive and to insert language that mandates a balanced approach to energy-environment matters-as, for example, the amendment to NEPA I suggested earlier.

The other is by establishing a single, one-stop Federal siting agency as described in my statement. This would be a one-stop approach which both bills before you urge for State action but do not provide for Federal action.

It would also be in the national interest to enact emergency type legislation. This would be legislation under which the President, after finding a particular energy facility is urgently needed to meet national energy requirements, could direct the FEA to assert jurisdiction, to consider the views and recommendations of the Federal, State, or local agencies involved, and then license the facility expeditiously, granting waivers of particular Federal, State, or local laws and regulations if found necessary in the public interest.

There is a major point of difference between the two bills with respect to their treatment of State-siting procedures. The administration bill provides for Federal imposition of a siting program upon any State which fails to develop its own program. There is no such provision in S. 984. We prefer the approach in S. 984.

But even S. 984 goes too far. It specifies the precise kind of energy planning required by the States. Many States have adopted siting or land use legislation dealing with electric facility siting. These new State laws should be given time to work before being put into a Federal mold which may require that the State effort be undone.

These detailed provisions, aimed at controlling State actions, would be a divisive and needless source of contention and litigation between State and Federal authorities. At the very least, S. 984 should be amended to limit the denial of grants to only the energy facilities planning portion of the State program if this portion of the State's program is shown to be deficient. More fundamentally, however, the criteria for entitlement to the grants for energy facilities siting programs should be simplified to allow for greater flexibility in State programs.

We support the concept of a national energy facility planning report but we believe that the process can and should be simplified as described in my full statement.

In summary, there are positive aspects to the bills before you, but several provisions in them would compound the problem of siting energy facilities. However, the bills fall short of coming to grips with the core of problems which must be solved if we are to expedite the building of electric power facilities. To meet these problems we urge consideration of the kinds of legislation I have suggested in my statement.

Thank you.

Senator STONE. Thank you very much. Does your associate wish to make any additional remarks?

Mr. TOLL. The only thing I would add, Senator, as Mr. Mielke has implied, one of the major difficulties is the congressional jurisdiction over all of these items of legislation with Clean Air Act going to one committee, Water Pollution Act going to another.

And, the one thing that might cure this is the sort of emergency legislation that would authorize the President in finding a particular energy facility was needed to authorize the FEA to cut through all of the existing statutes and restrictions and to license that facility. Senator STONE. Thank you very much. We will be in recess until 2 p.m., when we will continue with the environmental witnesses, who are next up on the list.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mielke follows:]


I am Frederick W. Mielke, Jr., Vice President and Assistant to the Chairman of Pacific Gas and Electric Company. My Company serves gas and electricity to most of Northern and Central California.

I am appearing today on behalf of the Edison Electric Institute, which is the principal trade asociation for the nation's investor-owned electric utilities.

« PreviousContinue »