Show Dispute on oil TVA Centered On n Manner of Operation VI WASHINGTON ASHINGTON Feb 17 AP Dispute AP-Dispute Dispute over the TV TVA A leading up to the dispute before the supreme court has pivoted principally on the old age-old question of p private versus public operation of f utilities An immediate cause was the yardstick by which the new deal undertook to measure the fairness of private ate power I I I charges barges The announced aim In charging low lowr rates tes for torT TVA VA power allegedly commensurate with what it t cost to generate was to promote lower ower power costs genera generally ly for consumers con- con sumers and hence increase con- con This was denounced as government government government govern govern- ment competition with private bust busi n ness Built in 1933 wIll Muscle Sh Shoals I a. a as the foundation T TVA V A inherited the he controversy w which ch for a d decade cade swirled about the wartime wartime wartime war war- time power and nitrogen fixation facilities ies in Alabama David E. E Lilienthal menthal of Wisconsin given charge of the power program am in August 1933 enunciated t this ls policy r f 1 The interest of the the public in the widest possible use of power is superior BU- BU perlor to any private interest I Where the private interest and this his public interest conflict th the public interest must prevail T V VA A rates w were re cut sharply under uner un un- der er prevailing charges of private companies Inv Investors tors complained this this' deprived them of their property property prop- prop erty rights in violation of the con- con Numerous cities towns and rural communities in the seven states di directly directly directly di- di interested for p public ownership of local distribution fa facilities fa- fa dUties and to obtain use of ot Muscle Shoals ShoaL current Then T TVA V A encountered virtually a stone wall The Tho potential yardstick cus- cus those omers those voting for public ownership ownership met met all sorts of at difficulties difficulties financial and legal as they sought to acquire the existing facilities fa fa- fa- fa of or the private concerns The public works administration allotted funds to valley cities under loan oan and grant agreement to buy the he private equipment or construct new tew facilities These funds now are arc tied led up in court suits atta attacking king legality of P PV V A providing funds for or this purpose A few cities and anti rural areas areal were a able le to hook up with TV TVA T V A. A Some already operated their distribution dis die equipment In the cities It it no now serves the authority has ha re reported reported reported re- re ported marked increases in the use of electricity at electricity electricity-at at low cost The electrical homo home and farm authority au au- was set up In the area to finance purchase of ot el electrical l appliances appliances ances inces by residents and so 10 increase the use of power Opposition to the T TVA V A power phase Increased steadily until the case from front Alabama finally reached the supreme court Lilienthal hal recently reported Muscle Mus Mue- cle Shoals has b been en producing very substantial revenues f Jr r the federal treasury despite litigation which has delayed execution of contracts Involving millions of additional in In- In come The spectacular Increase e in power pow pow- power er use uses is putting a 11 strain on pow power power- producing facilities in the Tennessee valley he added although only a year ago private utilities estimated that there was a a. substantial sur lur- plus 1 |