Senator MUSKIE. Now, Mr. Dubrow, you have spoken about the long life of this project. Secretary Udall has spoken of it. Now, in projecting your costs over the 100-year period, and 50-year period, have you taken into account the necessity to replace parts and replace equipment?

Mr. DUBROW. Yes, sir; we have, as we do in the case of every project which we present and which we build, allowed in our cost estimates money-based on many, many years of experience of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation-for operation and maintenance and replacement of parts as becomes necessary.

Senator MUSKIE. And is this related to your estimates of the corrosive effects of the salt water?

Mr. DUBROW. Well, yes. It is related. We have allowed money actually to replace these turbines as it becomes necessary.

Senator MUSKIE. Now, in the discussion of this project that has taken place in various places over the past year, there has been a tendency to overlook the distinction between peaking power and load factor power as it relates to Quoddy and other alternatives. I think it would be useful for the record at this point if you would give us a little discussion of the use of fossil fuel or thermal or nuclear plants in production of peaking power.

Mr. DUBROW. Well, Senator, in this modern day, most utilities throughout the country are buying thermal or nuclear plants in sizes which start at 500,000 kilowatts. Now, these plants are wonderful if they operate at maximum efficiency. And, by that I mean they must operate about 90 to 95 percent of the time.

When they do, and this is what they are designed for, and this is what they are built for, and this is the way they are operated, they do produce low-cost power. For example, the Boston Edison Co.'s new Boston Street station produces power for around somewhere between 6 and 7 mills at 90- to 95-percent load factor. But if you were to operate that plant for 2 hours, the cost of this power from it, when you consider the capital cost, would be 50 or 60 mills, whereas the QuoddyDickey combination produces power at about 12 mills overall on the average. The real answer to the question is that as utility systems increase and as we indicated with our slide projection program, as this peak builds up, a project such as Quoddy becomes more and more valuable because peaking power is worth three to four times what load factor power is.

Senator MUSKIE. Is it accurate and fair to say that there is no real substitute for hydroelectric power for peaking purposes?

Mr. DUBROW. Certainly there is no cheaper substitute, Senator. You can use gas turbines. Some of the companies buy them. The cost per kilowatt for the unit is cheap. But it takes as much as 2 to 3 cents a kilowatt-hour for the power that comes out of it. So there is no cheaper substitute for hydroelectric power for peaking.

Senator MUSKIE. As a matter of fact, the development of the pump storage concept is a recognition of the fact that peaking power is needed.

Mr. DUBROW. Precisely. And, Consolidated Edison, as you know, of New York, is trying to install a 1,800,000-kilowatt pump storage plant on the Hudson which they need for peaking. Now, the advantage that Quoddy has over a pump storage is that Quoddy-Dickey

develops and generates 3 billion kilowatt-hours of energy annually whereas a pump storage plant, you have to put 3 kilowatt-hours into it to get 2 back.

Senator MUSKIE. By the very nature of the process it is expensive. Mr. DUBROW. Yes.

Senator MUSKIE. What is needed to develop a pump storage facility? Mr. DUBROW. You have to have a source of energy.

Senator MUSKIE. How about terrain?

Mr. DUBROW. Sir?

Senator MUSKIE. How about terrain?

Mr. DUBROW. And you have to have suitable terrain in which you have a substantial difference in elevation, at least 600 to 800 feet to get into anything that is economic.

Senator MUSKIE. In other words, you need a place to store the water that you are going to use to generate power subsequently.

Mr. DUBROW. Right.

Senator MUSKIE. And this is not necessarily available in locations which have use for it.

Mr. DUBROW. Precisely.

Senator MUSKIE. I am sure the report will suggest a great many more questions to a great many more people in the course of the days and weeks ahead, but I have about used up my questions.

Congressman McIntire has another question or two that he would like to ask.

Mr. McINTIRE. Mr. Dubrow, would you comment on the use of jet engines in a stationary unit.

Mr. DUBROW. Sir?

Mr. McINTIRE. Will you comment on the use of jet engines and stationary units for peaking power?

Mr. DUBROW. Secretary Holum and I attended a conference in Venice about 2 years ago, I believe, on peaking power, and we found that a great many European countries, particularly Great Britain, are using jet engines for peaking, and they are cheap, but the cost of operating them is prohibitive in time, and the maintenance cost on them is prohibitive in time. They are all right on a small power system where you have a little peak, but if you are going to have, as we will have in this country, a completely integrated power system, the jet engine is just not economic.

Mr. McINTIRE. Are there any being operated in this country? Mr. DUBROW. Oh, yes, indeed, but the fuel costs run from 2 to 3 cents a kilowatt-hour.

Mr. HOLUM. I think, Congressman, a very accurate summary of this international conference Mr. Dubrow and I attended on peakloads coverage went to this point, and they recognized that gas turbines were an available source of peakload of electrifying energy but everybody was looking for a cheaper and a better source, and I think we are very fortunate here in the United States, particularly in New England, to have this exciting opportunity available to us to provide peakload generation by using the renewable energy of the tides. There is no question but what there are alternatives, but this is much more desirable and cheaper.

Senator MUSKIE. Could you give us, any of you, an up-to-date report on the status of the LaRance River project in France?

Mr. DUBROW. Senator, when Secretary Holum and I went to this Peaking Power Conference, one of the principal reasons that we went was to go and have a look at this project. We talked to the engineer who had spent some 30 years of his life in making this a reality, and this project, although it is a little bit behind the construction schedule, it is scheduled to go on the line late in 1965. Isn't it, Joe? Mr. GUIDRY. 1966.

Mr. DUBROW. Or early in 1966.

Mr. HOLUM. I think the visit to LaRance was very, very impressive. I am not a technical person, but obviously the French have found a way to get this energy and are going to get the job done. They have established for their own country and for the world that these techniques do work.

Senator MUSKIE. So the French now have under construction a tidal power project which will be completed in 1965 or beyond.

Mr. DUBROW. Or 1966, which will have an installed capacity of 240,000 kilowatts.

Senator MUSKIE. I think it is an interesting fact that the mixture of hydro and thermal plants in France is about 50-50 which I think would be one of the highest in the world outside of the Scandinavian countries. Would that be true, Mr. Dubrow?

Mr. DUBROW. Well, for a country; yes, sir. That is right. We have a rather unique situation in the Pacific Northwest where we now have 90 percent hydroelectric power, but throughout the United States I think the ratio is something like 80 percent thermal and 20 percent hydro.

Senator MUSKIE. And that ratio indicates the importance of developing our remaining hydro resources if we are to retain a proper mix.

Mr. DUBROW. Well, this is precisely right. As a matter of fact, Senator, Duke Power Co. built a plant down in North Carolina which will have a lower load factor than we are projecting for Quoddy. It has an installed capacity of about 300,000 kilowatts, and it will operate at a 5-percent-or-lower load factor, and this just shows you how important it is to have power available to meet peakloads.

Senator MUSKIE. Up to this point, in the history of the technology, the economics of energy, it has been considered important to have a mix of hydro and thermal plants, is that not so?

Mr. DUBROW. Yes, sir. Precisely.

Senator MUSKIE. There is nothing in the development of that technology to indicate that that would be outmoded.

Mr. DUBROW. No, sir. I think as time goes on, our hydro projects will become more and more valuable and they will become more and more peaking projects.

Senator MUSKIE. This is true for a number of reasons, I think most of which you have stated here this morning in the record, and one reason that appeals to me above all others is that in hydro we are using a renewable rather than a wasting resource.

Mr. DUBROW. That is right, and, of course, with a hydroplant we have complete flexibility and as power systems get bigger, this becomes more and more important.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, gentleman. You have been most helpful and also interesting.

Secretary UDALL. Thank you, Senator. Hope to see you again soon. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you.

(Secretary Udall's prepared statement is as follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL

It is a pleasure for me to be here today to present our appraisal of the proposed international Passamaquoddy tidal power project, United States and Canada, the proposed Dickey and Lincoln School hydroelectric power developments on the upper St. John River, and the essential backbone transmission system to interconnect these powerplants and to deliver power to the load centers within the marketing area.

Our intensive investigations on this project stem from 1961 when Senator Muskie requested the President to conduct a "careful and vigorous analysis" of the International Joint Commission's Report of April 1961 on the international Passamaquoddy tidal power project and of the upper St. John River project. As we have progressed in this review, the practicability and desirability of harnessing the tides in Passamaquoddy Bay for the generation of electric power to meet the future peak demands of the utility systems in the New EnglandNew Brunswick area has become more and more evident. In addition, we recognize the inherently significant economic values in immediate and sustained recreational and employment opportunities from developing this most important resource which is constantly being wasted to the sea.

In evaluating the potential of Passamaquoddy, it is essential to recognize that the tide is a perpetual resource, fully predictable and dependable. It is due to forces which are astronomic in origin and dependent on the relative positions of the earth, the sun, and the moon.

The greatest rise and fall of the tides in the world occurs at the head of the Bay of Fundy on the Nova Scotia coast where tides as high as 40 to 50 feet are observed. The tides at Eastport, Maine, also in the Bay of Fundy and at Passamaquoddy, have a maximum rise and fall of about 26 feet with an average of 18.1 feet.

The plan adopted by the International Passamaquoddy Engineering Board for harnessing the tides of Passamaquoddy Bay and used in our investigations, consists of two pools, one of which is open to the sea through filling gates and the other open to the sea through emptying gates, with a powerplant between the pools. The gates to Passamaquoddy Bay, the high pool, open when the tide rises in the Bay of Fundy and close when the pool fills. Power is generated by releasing water from the high pool to the low pool through the powerhouse. The gates to Cobscook Bay, the low pool, open at low tide when the sea is below the level of the pool, allowing it to empty.

Passamaquoddy Bay has an area of 100 square miles-nearly 11⁄2 times the size of the District of Columbia. It fills and empties with the tides in the Bay of Fundy. Twice in each tidal day of 24 hours and 50 minutes, the water level in this reservoir varies through a long-term average of depth of 18.1 feet with a maximum of 25.7 feet and a minimum of 11.7 feet. Approximately 1 million acre-feet of water, over 300 billion gallons, enter and are discharged from Passamaquoddy Bay during each average tidal rise and fall of 18.1 feet.

From a water supply standpoint, the tidal potential is unlimited and it becomes simply a problem of tidal range to fill Passamaquoddy Bay.

In the case of the river plants, full control of generation is available over long periods of time but the rivers are subject to drought, whereas the tides are not. One basic difference, however, does exist in the tides in that they must be utilized when they occur or else are lost forever. By the plan adopted, the primary operation of the tidal plant would be for peaking power, but substantial power would also be generated at most other times. This off peak power generation will be integrated with the proposed Dickey-Lincoln School developments on the upper St. John River.

The electric power which can be generated utilizing the two-pool system is highly flexible and can be controlled to meet utility load patterns, or for very short "peaking" periods.

In the International Joint Commission's plan, the proposed operation was to meet the electric utility load patterns in the local area. Our studies show that Passamaquoddy should be a peaking operation to meet a daily peak of 2 hours. The proposed operation of Passamaquoddy for peaking power is ideally suited for coordination of the tidal cycle and our 24-hour solar day.

The electric utility systems in the New England-New Brunswick area have characteristically experienced a predominant peak power demand daily and generally from 5 to 6 o'clock in the evening. Since each day two tides occur which are predictable in both time and magnitude, it is possible to select the proper tide so that a full high pool and an empty low pool will be available to permit generation to meet this peak power demand.

The load and resources study prepared by this Department for the marketing area embracing the New England States, eastern New York State, and the Maritime Provinces of Canada, demonstrated the need for economical peaking power sources to meet future power requirements as loads increase and larger baseload units are added to utility systems.

Our studies of available power resources and predictions on future load growth concluded that Passamaquoddy could ultimately be developed as a peaking powerplant in the magnitude of 1 million kilowatts. Quoddy would also produce large amounts of offpeak power. Its operation should be coordinated with the Dickey storage reservoir and powerplant on the upper St. John River in Maine to maximize the power output of both features of the project.

This concept is predicated on (1) the use of low-cost axial flow turbines capable of operation at the low heads available from the tide, and (2) extensive computer studies demonstrating the workability and determining the precise quantities of dependable power which could be obtained and delivered to utility systems in the region.

The substantive investigations and studies accomplished to date in collaboration with the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, clearly demonstrate the engineering and economic feasibility of the project.

This report contains the recommendations and conclusions reached by the Passamaquoddy Study Committee and its collaborative studies with the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army.

As required by the procedures set forth in Senate Document No. 97, the report is being submitted to the interested Federal agencies, to the Governors of the affected States, as well as to the appropriate offices within the Canadian Government, for review and comment. Such comments as are received will be embodied in my final report to President Johnson.

For historical background, I would appreciate your permission to submit the following documents for the record:

1. Summary of the report of the International Joint Commission dated April 1961.

2. Load and resources study dated December 1961.

3. My July 1963 review report on the project.

4. The supplemental report issued yesterday.

5. Department of the Interior news releases associated with these documents. We are firmly convinced that these collective studies and investigations clearly demonstrate the engineering and economic feasibility of the PassamaquoddyDickey project.

This project will provide essential power required for the ever-expanding demand of the New England area by putting to beneficial use a wasting resource of the tides in the flow of the St. John River.

It will provide substantial area redevelopment benefits and national economic benefits consisting of 15,000 man-years of onsite employment for skilled and semiskilled workers, many thousands of additional man-years of employment in the manufacturing and transportation of materials and equipment, and sustained economic benefit derived from the availability of abundant relatively lowcost power, as well as an unparalleled international recreation attraction. The Department's Passamaquoddy-St. John River Study Committee recommends

(1) Early authorization of the international Passamaquoddy tidal power project, the upper St. John River developments, and the transmission system, for construction by the United States; and

(2) Early construction of the project to develop low-cost firm power for Maine and peaking power for the remainder of the New England States, combat poverty, develop recreation resources, and utilize the now wasted water resources of Maine.

"The race for the moon has many scientific ramifications, but none so challenging in terms of immediate benefit to man than the harnessing of the ever-wasting tides to generate electricity. This endeavor and the utilization of nuclear energy to desalt the ocean's waters will be important tests of our ability to create a great scientific society."

36-941-64-9