OCR Text |
Show power-marketing policy along the general lines suggested by the editor of Electrical World, quoted on page 228 of this report. Studies have shown that private companies can offer lower rates than those which they now charge, that this is more a matter of managerial policy than of re- duction in profits; in fact, that such a new low- rate, load-building policy will likely result in more stable profits at present levels. In this connection the Commission recognizes with satisfaction that definite progress in the di- rection pointed by this third line of Federal power marketing policy has been made, but further prog- ress is required. Such progress is possible under present po^ver policy. A further word is necessary: In whatever re- gion it is developing and marketing power, the Federal Government should allow the maximum latitude to municipally owned and cooperative power undertakings to work out their power sup- ply on the basis of their own choice. If the Fed- eral Government pursues this policy there should be an equal responsibility on the part of the public systems to cooperate in assuring the lowest-cost regional power supply. Unified Responsibility for Rates Low-cost power supply is one of the important means for achieving the broad regional and na- tional objectives of comprehensive water resources programs. On this account the formulation of sound rate schedules constitutes one of the major responsibilities of the power marketing agency. Congressional legislation has not been consist- ent as to whether the marketing agency should have undivided responsibility in this matter, or whether approval by a second Federal agency should be required. Thus the Federal Power Commission is required to approve rates and changes in rates for power from the Bonneville, Fort Peck, and Army-constructed projects, but not for Tejinessee Valley Authority and Bureau of Reclamation projects. The Task Force on Regulatory Commissions of the Hoover Commission (Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government) favored a uniform policy in this respect. It recommended "that the statutes be revised to remove the requirement of rate approval by the Federal Power Commission." It continued: "There is a distinction between regulation of private and public enterprises. The private enterprise holds a monopoly position on the basis of valuable privileges granted by the public and is normally operating for purposes of profit. The regulatory commission exercises its authority to prevent unfair rates and profits. The officials of a public project have other and varied governmental purposes and are account- able directly for their management of the project." The Hoover Commission as a body reached no majority conclusion on the issue. No refer- ence is made to it in the report on regulatory bodies. One minority, headed by ex-President Herbert Hoover, in the report on Federal business enterprises recommended "that Congress deter- mine a national policy as to power rates in Federal projects, and that the Federal Power Commis- sion determine rates in accordance with such policy." This minority was also generally favor- able to sale of such power at the generating station. Another minority, headed by Dean Acheson, in the report on the Department of the Interior recommended that "full responsibility for * * * fixing and allocating costs should rest with the natural resources agency." This minority added "It is an anomaly to have one Federal agency regulating in part the proprietary activities of the water resources agencies." The Federal Power Commission has called this matter to the attention of this Commission, em- phasizing the unsatisfactory nature of the present basis on which it must approve rates to be charged for Federal power. The Federal Power Commission points out that in both the Columbia and Missouri Basins its ap- proval extends only to power produced at the Bonneville and Fort Peck projects and not to the power from the other Federal projects in the basins which will ultimately be commingled with power from Bonneville and Fort Peck. It points out further that it lacks comprehensive rate- making authority even as to the schedules requir- ing its confirmation or approval; in other words, 242 |