OCR Text |
Show -26- rapid has been the development, however, that new and different projects are already to the fore. Prom interconnection we are passing to the third stage. • which now confronts us under the rather hynoptic designation of Giant Power.99 In "brief, an integration is proposed of a vast network of generating plants, transmission lines and distributing stations, heretofore independent in their operations end therefore individually confined to their territorial radius,* This movement sponsored by Governor PFinchot 100 and the Giant Power Survey Board of Pennsylvania, aims at a concentration of the sources of generation, a pooling of power supply, elimination of smaller generating stations and their transformation into centers of distribution. Giant Power, in Governor Pinchot's words, "proposes to create, as it were, a great pool of power into which power from all sources will be poured, and out of which power for all uses will be taken. "101 interconnection seeks "the disposal of surplus"; integration is based on" the pooling of supply. "102 The supply contemplated by. these proposals is to be derived both from waterfalls and coal. At present, particularly in the Eastern States, coal is the predominant source for the development of electrical energy. 103 United States Army. A report, embodying portions of both the super power and the giant power schemes of development was submitted on April 4, 1924. Super Power Studies for the Northeast Section of the United States, pub- lished by the Northeastern Super Power Committee. 99 See Report of the Giant Power Survey Board, supra note 96. See also Giant Power Number (1924) 4 Survey Graphic, No. 6. Giant Power (1925) 108 Am. Acad. Pol. Sci. Ann. No. 207» Stimson, Public Operation vs. Private Oper- ation of Public Utilities. Address delivered Jan. 2^, 1925, at the National Republican Club, New York City. . lOOQQYej-nQj. pinchot's Message, Report of Giant Power Survey Board, supra note 96, at PP« iii-xiii. 101Ibid, vii. ' 102 "Inter connect ion is essentially an exchange of surplus between exist- ing generating plants. . . The process is very much like a chain of reser- voirs, perhaps twenty on the line from Mexico to Billings. Each reservoir represents a separate electrical system filled with current generated within that system. Suppose an electric drought strikes Billings and the Current reservoir there gets low. The interconnection tap b etween that system and the next one in the chain is opened and current flows into the Billings tank. But that lowers the current level in the next reservoir. The interconnection tap between the next two is then opened, and the procedure is repeated. The same process can be carried on indefinitely up to the limit of interconnec- tion. Tlie next move was inherent in the logic of the situation. Why not pump new current into all these interconnected system reservoirs from giant generating stations with all the economies of large scale production? And why not place these stations not only at water power sites but also - for those th«tt burn coal - at the mine mouth? Obviously, it is far easier to transpor-t current than to transport either water or coal." Clark, Giant Power Transforming America's Life (Feb. 22, 1925), New York Times. 10^Toskuil, Water-Power Situation in the United States (.1925) I Journ. Land & P-ub» Util* Econ. 895 Cooke, op« cit. supra note 96, at pp. 18-19» |