Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-05-18
Holding Company Act


column of Thomas L. Stokes
in your paper of April 10, 1856,
in connection with a proposed
amendment to the Holding
Company Act of 1895.
In the first place, it looks
as if Mr.. Stokes twisted the
facts in order to add some
color to his story. 1t is not
true that Senator Pastore
elected information concern
ing my retention by the Pacific
Northwest Power Company
only after his curiosity was
aroused because so much time
was devoted to this subject.
The fact is-and the record
will so Show-that this ques-
ton was asked before any
testimony was given. This was
done with every witness where
his status was not clear. Had
he not asked me the question,
I would have volunteered the
information. Mr.. Stokes is
obviously implying that an
attempt was being made to
conceal this fact. and that
something undetermined was
intended. Mr.. Stokes. like a
good many columnistS. never
let's little thing like the facts
interfere with good story.
Secondly, attention is di-
rected to the fact that rep
resentatives of the Federal
Power Commission, two State
commissions and the National
Association of Railroad and
Utility Commissioners all testi-
fled on behalf of this bill. The
opposition of the S. E. C. to
the bill, set forth in their MEM
orandum and repeated in part
by Chairman Armstrong, does
not touch upon the facts that
the Holding Company Act was
designed to be self-liquidating
and to take operating utilities
out from under S. E. C. juris-
diction. The abuses at which
the act was originally aimed
could not be repeated if this
amendment were passed. Just
which investors would be
harmed by the passage of the
amendment was never made
clear. How consumers could be
hurt by having large low-cost
generating facilities con-
structed. was likewise COM
pletely ignored.
AS for the opposition Of
Government-ownership advo-
Gates, including Senator Morse,
their philosophy is to take
stand against anything that
the private companies want to
do, and to back their "argu-
ments" by shouts about mo
nopoly" and power trust"
Since the subject companies
already are monopolies, regu-
lated by both the Federal
Power Commission and State
commissions. this writer finds
these arguments" extremely
unconvincing.
AS to my being an expert"
witness (the quotes are Mr..
StokesD. he failed to note that
l worked for nearly a decade
in the Division of Public Utili-
ties as chief of the section
dealing with the breakup of
the Electric Bond and Share
holding company system.
worked previously for the New
York Public Service Commits
sion, and have legal training.
AS to the merits of the bill,
which Mr.. Stokes did not touch
upon, it would remove a dis
elimination which now clearly
exists. A large electric utility
can undertake a project such
as is contemplated by the four
sponsoring companies of Pacific
Northwest Power Company
without coming under the ju-
risdiction of S. E. c under the
Holding Company Act. If the
four sponsoring companies
should merge, the same thing
would be true because the sur
viving company would then be
big enough to accomplish the
financing alone.
The removal of this discrimi-
nation would mean that COM
panies such as Montana Power
Company could Join with
other companies to build
needed generating and trans
mission facilities without being
required to dispose of their
gas business or TO subject
themselves to the rigid capt.
talization standards Of the
S. z. c. II the public interest
is now served adequately by
Federal Power Commission and
State commission Jurisdiction.
1t is difficult to see why the
construction OF Jointly owned
generating facilities changes
the picture.
Robert $. Holmes.