the early thirties, and the entire Northwest region will have to look primarily to the Federal Government's program to take care of any future requirements for power capacity.

Senator OVERTON. As it stands now, about one-half is privately owned and the other half is publicly owned? Mr. MARLETT. That is about right.

Mr. DONDERO. In the State of Washington.

Senator OVERTON. No; in both the States, Washington and Oregon combined, according to the figures you just gave me. You had privately owned, in round figures, 500,000 in one State and 300,000 in the other. That is a total of 800,000. There was the total of 1,000,000 kilowatts in Washington and 500,000 kilowatts in Oregon, both privately and publicly owned. So you have in round figures about a million and a half total consumption, of which 800,000 is that of privately owned companies in both States.

Mr. DONDERO. There is a mistake in those figures. The figure given for Oregon was about 169,000 publicly owned and the figure given in the State of Washington was 484,000 publicly owned. The sum of those two makes a little bit more than 600,000, while the total in the 2 States was 2,700,000.

Mr. MARLETT. That figure of 2,007,000 was for 1942. These figures were for 1940. The ratio here is approximately 600,000 publicly owned and 900,000 privately owned in 1940.

The figures in 1940 include only three generators at Bonneville for Oregon and include nothing for Grand Coulee in Washington, since there were no generators yet in operation. Now, of course, as the installations at Bonneville and Grand Coulee proceed under the large program we now have under way, the total publicly owned will soon be substantially in excess of the total privately owned.

Mr. DONDERO. Especially in the State of Washington.

Mr. MARLETT. Especially in the State of Washington. As a matter of fact, in 1944, as I pointed out, just Bonneville and Grand Coulee will have 1,400,000 kilowatts, which exceeds the combined capacities of all the privately owned plants in Oregon and Washington.

Mr. DONDERO. You are placing it on the basis of usage and facilities established in 1940. Now, I ask you whether or not, Mr. Marlett, my recapitulation was not correct for 1940?

Mr. MARLETT. Your total of 2,000,000 did not apply for 1940. The total for 1940 was 112 million, of which 900,000 was privately owned. Mr. DONDERO. And 600,000 was publicly owned?

Mr. MARLETT. Yes.

Mr. ANGELL. How do you classify Bonneville as to Washington and Oregon?

Mr. MARLETT. Bonneville is included in the Oregon figures and Grand Coulee is included in the Washington figures.

Mr. ANGELL. As a matter of fact, the Bonneville generating plant is all in Oregon?

Mr. MARLETT. Yes; it is. The generating plant is.

Senator OVERTON. I do not want to confuse the record with too many figures, but the information I was trying to get is, How many kilowatts are being supplied at the present time by private power companies and how many by publicly operated companies? That is the point I want to bring out, not what may happen in the future or what has been done in the past.

74169-42-pt. 1-28

Mr. MARLETT. The figure of 2,007,000 kilowatts for 1942 included 626,400 for the Bonneville-Coulee system. The combined publicly owned plants

Senator OVERTON. In order not to get things confused, Bonneville does supply some of the private power companies with current, does it - not?

Mr. MARLETT. Yes, it does.

Senator OVERTON. So that is to be added to what the private companies do supply? I want to know what the private companies supply today and what the public companies furnish?

Mr. MARLETT. In actual sales?

Senator OVERTON. Yes; regardless of the source from which they derive the power.

Mr. MARLETT. I will have to supply those figures in the record, Mr. Chairman; I do not have them.

Senator OVERTON. All right.

Mr. SMITH. You said that since the advent of Bonneville the private companies had not been developing any new capacity. That was your statement?

Mr. MARLETT. That is correct; yes.

Mr. SMITH. I think it would be well to have in this record some statement showing the figures of their increased capacity year by year for the decade previous to Bonneville, and also separate figures showing what extensions and what new capacity, if any, they developed for rural communities during the 10 years previous to the advent of Bonneville.

Mr. MARLETT. In other words, so we will have the picture to show what the private companies have been doing?

Mr. SMITH. To serve the public, and particularly to serve the farming communities, and whether they were doing any kind of real job for 10 years prior to Bonneville. Let us have it year by year, their new installations, their new capacity, both in the urban and rural communities of Washington and Oregon.

Could that be furnished?

Mr. MARLETT. Yes, sir; that can be furnished.

Senator OVERTON. Very well, Those figures will be put in the record. (The figures requested are as follows:)

Total installed generating capacities of private utilities during the period from 1927 to 1941, inclusive

135,000 kilowatts of steam capacity installed in new Shuffleton plant and 7,500 kilowatts of hydro capacity added to the existing electron plant.

235,000 kilowatts of steam capacity installed in the Shuffleton plant.

360,000 kilowatts of hydro capacity installed in new Rock Island plant.

4200 kilowatts of hydro capacity at Jim Creek and 200 kilowatts of hydro capacity at Sylvia plant removed from service.

5 Electron hydro plant damaged by landslide. Total 18,000 kilowatts out of service.

18,000 kilowatts taken out of service by landslide at electron hydro plant restored to service. Washington Water Power Co.:

7 560 kilowatts of hydro capacity installed in new Dalkena plant.

The following hydro plants purchased by the Washington Water Power Co.: Lewiston, at 10,000 kilowatts; Grangeville, at 624 kilowatts; and Asotin, at 1,500 kilowatts. Total of 12,124 kilowatts. Meyers Falls hydro plant of 1,200 kilowatts purchased by the Washington Water Power Co. 10 Asotin hydro plant of 1,500 kilowatts removed from service.

Pacific Power & Light Co.:

11 150 kilowatts of hydro capacity installed in new Cline Falls plant.

12 1,000 kilowatts of hydro capacity installed in new Joseph plant.

Eastern Oregon Light & Power Co.:

13 Installed capacity of the Morgan Lake hydro plant reduced 120 kilowatts and capacity of the Baker steam plant reduced 200 kilowatts.

Portland General Electric Co.:

14 35,000 kilowatts of steam capacity added to station L.

15 Hydro generating capacity of plant P increased to 38,000 kilowatts. (Original installation 25,500 kilowatts.)

Northwestern Electric Co.:

18 10,000 kilowatts of steam capacity added to North Bend plant.

19 600 kilowatts Stayton hydro plant destroyed by fire.

20 2,500 kilowatts of steam capacity installed at Dallas, Oreg., and 5,000 kilowatts of steam capacity installed at Springfield, Oreg.

Senator OVERTON. The figures you were going to give a while ago were what would be the increase in public distribution under this bill or in the event of the Columbia Power Administration's acquiring the properties? Was it not somewhat along that line? What was it? Mr. MARLETT. I was going to show the financial effects of acquisition of one or more companies under the terms of this bill upon our own financial statements.

Senator OVERTON. Yes.

Mr. MARLETT. I have that information here.

Senator OVERTON. Did you have only one or two companies?

Mr. MARLETT. I have taken it on two bases, Mr. Chairman. The first basis would be for three companies combined, namely, the Puget Sound Power & Light Co., the Pacific Power & Light Co., and the Eastern Oregon Light & Power Co. I have taken those in order to give a good cross picture of the effects of acquisition, using the Puget Co., which is the larger company, the Pacific, an intermediate size company, and Eastern Oregon, a smaller company.

Mr. ANGELL. I wonder if we might have the map back on the easel that shows the distribution areas, Mr. Chairman?

Senator OVERTON. Very well.

Senator BURTON. Mr. Marlett, from an operating standpoint, when you take over those companies through the Columbia Power Administration and sell them back to the locally owned distributing companies, do you sell back dead generating plants or not?

Mr. MARLETT. No, sir; we will not sell back dead generating plants. If they are dead, I am sure the districts would not pay anything for them. There may be some smaller plants which would fit in best with the district's operations, and they would be sold to the districts on the basis of the actual value of those plants to the district's operations. Senator BURTON. The thing that I wanted to get clear is that you have the big generating plant at Bonneville, the big generating plant at Coulee, one of them run by the War Department and the other one by the Interior Department, and then you will have the generating plants of these private companies that you take over. Who is going to run those?

Mr. MARLETT. The larger generating plants and transmission lines and substations would be operated by the Bonneville-Coulee Administration, or Columbia Power Administration.

Senator BURTON. So that there will be a third generating operation in there?

Mr. MARLETT. Yes, there will.

Senator BONE. That would be the only generating operation you would have in hand-that is the actual turning of the wheels? Mr. MARLETT. Yes.

The Puget Sound Power & Light Co. and the Pacific Power & Light Co. I believe have been described rather fully to the committee. The Puget Co. is serving this entire area in here [indicating on a map], the Pacific Power & Light Co. serving this area here, the Eastern Oregon Light & Power Co. serving this area in here, in Union County and Baker County.

Mr. ANGELL. That does not include the Portland General Electric Co.?

Mr. MARLETT. No, sir; the first basis does not include the Portland General Electric Co.

Mr. ANGELL. Aside from the Portland General Electric Co., it would take in the entire area of northwestern Oregon and north central Oregon?

Mr. MARLETT. Yes. The southern portion is served by the California-Oregon Power Co., the central of the State by the Mountain States Power Co., and the northern portion by the Portland General Electric Co.

Senator OVERTON. All right, proceed.

Mr. MARLETT. Obviously, in trying to show the financial effects of acquiring those properties upon our own statements, I was confronted with certain difficulties, because I had to make certain assumptions as to the basis of the acquisition of operations.

First, there would be, of course, the uncertainty as to the systems to be acquired. For my purpose I have taken the three companies I have mentioned as one basis, and I have also taken the entire eight companies to show the maximum effect upon our financial pictures if all companies in the territory were acquired as a second basis.

In the second place, an assumption had to be made as to the price of the properties.

Thirdly, an assumption had to be made as to the facilities to be retained by the Bonneville or Columbia Power Administration and those to be transferred back to the public agencies.

Finally, an assumption had to be made as to the cost of revenue bond financing undertaken in order to raise the funds with which to acquire these properties.

As to the price of the properties, which is one of the difficult problems, I am sure the committee understands that we have been engaged in negotiations for acquisition of some of the properties and that we could not very well disclose in a public record the exact details as to price. However, for purposes of my study, I have combined the wholesale properties of the three companies on a combined basis, ssuming that we have already sold back to the public agencies the distribution properties

Mr. ANGELL. At the price at which they were taken over?

Mr. MARLETT. A pro rata price; yes; at which they were taken over, and will show the effects upon our financial statements in the way of bonds issued and assets acquired and also by way of increased revenues and expenses incurred by the acquisition.

I have assumed prices which I think are within reason and, if anything, are somewhat higher in order to give the maximum adverse situation so far as the issuing of revenue bonds and results on our financial picture are concerned.

As to the revenue bonds themselves, I have assumed that they are issued on a three and a quarter percent basis, which gives at least a half percent higher than we would expect to sell them-probably a half to three-quarter percent higher-but I have assumed that basis in order again to show the maximum adverse situation insofar as the financial results are concerned.

Mr. DONDERO. Will you define the word "adverse," to whom that applies, whether to the Government or to the private power companies? Mr. MARLETT. The word "adverse" applies to the Government; that is, the higher the price we pay and the higher the interest rate we pay on our bonds, why, the more cost we will have to cover by the