| OCR Text |
Show Corporation to Challenge Utilities Rates Utility companies will face increasingly organized opposi- tion from Utah consumers. A Where Theres Smoke, Theres Fire Can garbage compete with coal? That is the question Utah Power and Light must answer before embracing municipal waste as a source of fuel. Studies have shown gar- bage is competitive with, or even cheaper than, coal. On paper the guess looks good. Now the challenge is to design a plant and figure the actual costs, said the Director of Research at the power company, Val A. Finlayson. Garbage will never be a major source of fuel, Finlay- son claimed, but could supply about five percent of the energy needs of a population, Combined with coal or another combustible material, garbage could be one of a variety of sources of fuels that power companies use to generate electricity. Using garbage makes sense because its better to use it than waste it, the researcher said. But alternate sources of fuel inevitably produce alter4 . 4 fi. nate problems. Problems accompanying garbage include bacterial and viral contamination; the need to convert present plant systems to ones able to bum garbage; and the possibility the amount of garbage generated by a population may decrease as people develop more conservative habits. The power company in St. Louis, Missouri, has operated an electricity generating power plant burning munici- ' 'V pal waste for two years. At this time the plant provides less than one percent of the populations power, but it is still in an experimental stage. The major problem the power company officials have encountered so far, Finlayson said, is an increased level of bacteria and virus infection from garbage in the area It surrounding the plant. build to may be necessary sanitation facilities before the garbage is burned, .Finlayson said, and this process may add to the cost of using waste as a fuel source. 4 4 ; : 4 Converting Plants If Utah Power and Light were to use municipal waste as a fuel source it would be fairly simple, because much of its present system is designed to burn coal, not gas or oil. Garbage is often burned with coal, and requires similar kinds of burning equipment. But plants designed to burn oil or gas cannot easily be converted to garbage-burnin- g plants. In fact, says Finlayson, it would be more expensive to convert such plants than it would be to build an entirely new one. City officials in Seattle, Washington, have seriously studied the possibi- lity of using municipal waste as a fuel, but, said Finlayson, they could not economically bum garbage because their power plants are designed to burn oil and gas. Seattle would have to convert the municipal waste to gas and oil, and continue using its present plants to generate the electri- city. This conversion is entirely possible, technically, Finlayson said, but the question is whether it is economically feasible. Economic feasibility continues to nag power plant designers as they contemplate the possible change in consumption habits of their customers. consumers pay more for each unit of energy than does industry. We want industry to . pay its fair share, and we want to encourage conservation, I possible-a- nd consumprobable-th- at not Garbage-pron- e, Vice President Claims As population continues to grow and land and fuel become more scarce, most large, cities will seriously consider garbage as a major ' source of fuel. That is the conclusion reached by Kent E. Hatfield, vice president and general manager of Ford, Bacon & Davis Utah, Inc., specialists in continued on page Sb one-thir- Salt Lake City; Dan Lopp, 110 West 2950 South, Salt Lake City; Timothy J. Funk, 1236 Roosevelt Ave., Salt Lake City; and Martha Olson, 2500 Highland Drive, Salt Lake City. We want the rates to be more equitable to residential consumers. Now residential It is very think ers will become less wasteful in the future, and generate less garbage, Finlayson said. Then we would have less garbage to burn even though the population may continue to increase, he added. It may be that garbage will be used as a fuel source in Utah, not because it is so cheap, but because cities dont know what else to do with their waste. Utah Power and Light feels positive about using garbage. But we need to confront its problems and solve them, said Finlayson. We will let another company collect and sort the municiple waste, and give us a price on the combustible material. If the price is com- petitive with coal, we will probably use it, Finlayson newly formed corporation, Utility Consumer Action Group, Inc., has grown in membership strength and resolve to challenge rate increases proposed by utilities according to corporation spokesperson Sandy Adamson. We represent senior citid zens who are spending of their total incomes on utility costs, Adamson said. This is a tremendous burden for them, she added. The group has been active for about a year, but, Adamson explained, they have never acted as official interveners in rate hearings. Now that we have incorporated and have a board of directors we can take the time to systematically appear at hearings, she continued. Members of the board of directors are listed as Paul Thomas of Tooele, Wayne Horrocks, 763 Paxton Ave., Adamson stated. Adamson said the corpora- Dr. Val A. Finlayson, nuclear physicist and director of UP&L fs Research Department, explains the company's position on use of garbage as fuel tion has hundreds of members. The group is located at 110 West 2950 South in Salt Lake City. Controversy Shadows Legislative Reorganization . Controversy over the recent reorganization of the Utah Legislature may be just one facet of a larger problem concerning the states basic philosophy on governmental operation. Making that obser- yation was the Utah Founda- tion, the private research organization in an analysis of the legislative reorganization effected last year. According to the Founda- tion report, the real issue may be the question of whether Utah should stick to on-goi- ng its traditional pattern of limited legislative activity, conducted by citizen-legisltors who represent a cross- section of the community, Some legislators have urged extended sessions and the a- development of career legislators who devote full working time to this pursuit, To date, Utah voters have shown a preference for the historic pattern of citizen-leg- viators and limited sessions, although the move to annual sessions in 1970 may be viewed as a step in the opposite direction. Controversy over the reor- ganization program goes into Joint Budget and Audit, Legal Services, and Legislative Operations Committees, the Foundation noted in a re- search report released this week. Under the reorganiza- the larger question, the Foun- - tion plan, all legislators parti- dation notes. Critics charge cipate in interim activities that expanded involvement of previously conducted by the legislators in interim activity relatively few legislators e is a move toward the assigned to the Council and professional legislator. Sup: the three joint committees. All porters of reorganization, members of the Legislature however, assert that only by are also assigned to subcom- thus spreading the workload mittees of the Joint Appro- and by providing adequate priations Committee in a pro- professional staff assistance gram launched when Utah can the citizen-legislatbe adopted annual legislative preserved. Interim work sessions in 1970. Sessions in d requirements have become so years are heavy, it is argued, that it limited to 20 days and restric- could not be carried by a few ted primarily to consideration individuals without their of matters directly affecting having to sacrifice their pro- - the state budget, Broad-base- d fessional and business inter-participa-ests- . tion has proved highly contro- Extensive reorganization of versial, the Foundation legislative activity was effect-- . reports. Critics charge that ed in 1975, abolishing the committees are overloaded, former Legislative Council and continued on page 5b - full-tim- or even-numbere- |
