e. The public directly, or through its elected representatives, should then vote whether or not the specific pollution, at a specified level, should or should not be allowed. - an Radioactivity pollution as a by-product of atomic energy development is a prime example of the erroneous approach of the past approach which can lead to health and ecological disaster. There are indeed just about every by-product numerous other possible examples poison has been handled in an equally erroneous fashion. If an erroneous approach for radioactivity can lead to the prospect of wiping out 25 years of public health advances, it is not hard to see that an erroneous approach for the large combination of technological by-product poisons can do much more than wipe out public health advances. Indeed, the result can easily be wiping out the public. EXHIBIT 31 STATEMENT OF THE CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. REGARDING S.2472, A BILL TO ESTABLISH AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMISSION ON LONG ISLAND SOUND KINGS POINT, NEW YORK JULY 20, 1970 Mr. Chairman, may it please the Committee, my name is William E. Wall. I am Vice President, Public Affairs, Consolidated Edison Com pany of New York, Inc. I wish to thank the Committee for this op portunity to present Con Edison's views on the proposed Commission to study Long Island Sound. Con Edison, under the regulatory jurisdiction of the New York Public Service Commission, has the privilege and duty to supply energy to the nine million people of New York City and Westchester County. Specifically, we provide electric service to the entire 630 square mile area; natural gas to Manhattan, the Bronx, most of Queens and Westchester County; and in lower and mid-town Manhattan we provide central station steam service for heating, cooling and processing. The amount of energy annually used in our franchised area is enormous, and grows larger every year. In 1969, our customers used more than 30 billion kilowatthours of electricity: 61 billion cubic feet of gas; and 34 billion pounds of steam. In the ten years from 1959 to 1969, consumption of these three forms of energy has in steam. And our best estimates indicate that future demand will be even greater. In order to keep pace with this growing demand for power, which we are required by law to meet, Con Edison invested more than two and a half billion dollars in new generation and transmission facilities in the decade of the Sixties. We increased our electric generating capacity by almost 70% during those years. We estimate that this capacity will have to be increased by another 70% during the decade of the Seventies. What this means in simple terms is that new generating plants and new transmission lines have to be constructed. To meet the present rate of growth of about 375,000 kilowatts per year, and pro vide adequate reserves, requires a new 1,000,000 kilowatt plant ap proximately every two years. The need for additional electric power is a fact of life that we in the electric utilities must accept. At the same time, however, we must be willing to accept the fact that this growth must be ac commodated to another important trend in our society, the growing concern with our natural environment. This places the utilities in a serious dilemma. The situation was described by Con Edison's Chairman of the Board, Mr. Charles F. Luce, in an address before the Association of the Bar of the City of New York on November 18, 1969, on the topic Power For Tomorrow: The Siting Dilemma. I am attaching a copy of Mr. Luce's speech as an appendix to this statement, since it reviews the problems utilities face in locating suitable sites for new gen erating facilities. Mr. Luce summarized the dilemma by quoting an article by author Jeremy Main in the November, 1969 issue of FORTUNE: "Americans do not seem to be willing to let the utilities continue devouring these ever increasing quantities of water, air, and land. And yet clearly they also are not now willing to contemplate doing |