The Waterbury Democrat., 1945-06-12

GuSUh PSWSA' it he points to the record of the last Is years in which the public power issue has been defeated in over 20 special elections, eight of them III San Francisco.
 Active boosters of public power will differ with the conclusion to that flat statement, saying it mere ly proves how much influence P. G. and E. still has in California af- fairs. For P. G. and E. is an $8O0,- 100000 corporation with an income of $150,0O0,000 year, a combina- ton of some 450 companies doing 90 per cent of the electric power business in the northern part of the state.
 It is tough competition to beat. Competition from private business hasn't a chance and even publicly owned competition finds the going difficult.
 MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP
 SMALL
 Rural Electrihcation Administra- ton power co-operatives haven't been able to make a beginning in this area. There are less than 30 municipally owned distribution sys- tems, all small. The city of San Francisco owns the power produc- ton facilities at its Hetch Hetchy water supply system in the Yose- mite National Park, and the Bureau of Reclamation owns the power pro- duced at Shasta Dam. Both of these producers of big power now have to sell to P. G. and E., yet both are ambitious to get into the power dis tribution business on their own &C., count and in what they conceive to be the public interet, believing they can sell cheaper and force the pri- vate utility to lower rates.
 Furthermore, from Washington, Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes is making noises like wanting to get complete control of all the valley authorities - tennessee, Mis- souri, Columbia and California's Central Valley project. Ickes being great advocate of public power, private power operators in all these areas have reason for stopping and thinking about what may hit them next.
 In the Tennessee Valley, private power companies had to knuckle under and sell out to the govern ment.
 A Columbia River Authority, using power developed at the gov ernment Bonneville and Coulee Dams, could probably force the same thing.
 In northern California the situa- tion is different because here P. G. and E., is bigger than the govern mnt power interests, well-man- aged private business that admitted ly gives good service.
 If the government goes into active competition with P. G. and E., the government will have to build steam generating plants which will pro- duce power when the hydro-electric power can't be delivered in sufficient and firm quantity, build transmits sion lines, then go after some of P. G. and Els present customers. SHOULD GOVERNMENT
 COMPETE?
 In all the hula baloo about saving private business and letting private business do the job of providing full employment, is there more to be gained by setting the government up as a competitor? Or should pub- lie works projects, which the tax payer must eventually finance any, way, be planned to fit into the pri- Vate business pattern?
 The drawback to the latter is that 1t permits private business to make profits off the public taxpayers in- vestments, though the public can get it's money back through taxes levied on private business.
 This is an endless argument with many fine points of balance which make snap judgment impossible. But 1t all shows how even the big gest of these projects are finally reduced to an issue affecting the daily affairs of every citizen who pays tax or buys a kiloWatt.