TVA’s 70 year-old wish has come true
February 1, 2009
The more I delve into and learn about the Tennessee Valley Authority, the stronger I am convinced that the TVA, a parallel federal government, is an abomination and makes a travesty of the U.S. Constitution. Yes, the TVA likely will appeal the part of the North Carolina air pollution suit they lost because of their stated belief that they are above the law of the people, that they have discretionary powers as well as sovereign immunity, the taking of private property by eminent domain.
Much to their dismay, federal Judge Lacy Thornburg refuted those contentions, except for TVA’s right to take your property, and ordered the TVA to speed up the installation of scrubbers on four of TVA’s coal-fired plants nearest North Carolina and to report their progress. Seven other plants were not sufficiently close to North Carolina to judge whether or not they were harmful to the people and environment in North Carolina, said Judge Thornburg.
What the judge very clearly implied, however, is that the pollutants from those seven plants are harmful to those living in their proximity. And I can attest to that fact because I once lived downwind from the Colbert plant in the Muscle Shoals area of North Alabama. It was necessary to wash the outside of our house to clean off the soot and pollution to improve its salability; there are indications that smoke from that plant does adversely affect the lives of the people living in the Muscle Shoals area and the judge’s ruling strongly supports that assertion.
Now another judge has ordered the TVA to preserve all of the documents and evidence surrounding the Kingston dam burst disaster in a class action suit against the TVA. Attorneys wanted “unfettered access” to the site and TVA balked at that. More TVA delay, deceit, obfuscation.
Being such a litigious agency, it is interesting that the TVA has not crowed about probably the most serious threat to its 75-year existence. Seventy years ago in the Supreme Court ruling in 1939, Tennessee Electric Power Company vs. TVA, the court said, “In no aspect of the case have the appellants standing to maintain the suit, and the bill was properly dismissed.”
However, Justices Butler and McReynolds dissented, and Justice Reed took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Here is their dissenting opinion:
“That the substance of complainants' case may not be so compressed is disclosed by the summary of their bill that follows:
Complainants are 19 public utilities. Each, authorized by law, is engaged in generating and selling electricity within the political subdivisions of various States. Some have long-term contracts under which they furnish large quantities of electricity. They are more than able to fill the needs of the territories in which they operate, and are ready to supply such additional facilities as may be needed in the future. Their properties are modern and economically operated, and possess great value as going concerns. Their rates yield no more than a reasonable return, and are fully regulated by the States in which they serve.
Defendants are the Tennessee Valley Authority, a body corporate created by the Act of May 18, 1933, with the right to sue and be sued, and its three directors, charged with the duty of exercising the powers of the Authority. Harold L. Ickes, the Administrator of the Public Works Administration, has confederated with defendants in some acts charged to be illegal; he is not sued, because beyond the jurisdiction of the court. From its principal office at Knoxville, Tennessee, the Authority carries on a proprietary business as a public utility for the generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity in Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia and Alabama.
On its face, the Act discloses purpose to authorize a large and indeterminate number of great works for the primary purpose of creating a vast supply of electric power, to use this power to establish the United States in the business of producing, transmitting, and selling electric power, and to dispose of this power in a manner inconsistent with the principles of our dual system and so as to govern the concerns reserved to the States.* Any references in the Act to navigation or to any other constitutional objective are unsubstantial, and mere pretenses or pretexts under which it is sought to achieve an object reserved to the States. Except with respect to power available at Wilson Dam prior to the acts complained of, the program is one of creating an outlet for power deliberately produced as a commercial enterprise to be sold in unlawful and destructive competition with power now available in adequate quantities.
The program contemplates ultimately the development of all power sites on the Tennessee River and all its tributaries as an integrated electric power system, the construction and operation of hydroelectric plants at these sites, the use of auxiliary steam plants, the interconnection of all plants, and the elimination of existing privately owned utilities.
In the area of over 40,000 square miles (now 80,000 square-miles), there are 149 water power sites which, with auxiliary steam plants, will produce 25 billion k.w.h. annually. Present consumption of the area is 56% of that quantity. The electric power to be produced by defendants can only be sold through displacement of the complainants. Execution of the program will necessarily destroy all or a substantial part of the business and property of each of the complainants.
Defendants have taken over Wilson Dam and the nitrate plant and have commenced, or recommended to Congress, the construction of 10 other dams; their program calls for 11 completed dams by July 1, 1943. They have prepared plans for the construction of high-tension transmission lines from the dams to at least 14 cities, and indeed to the whole area. They have purchased or are attempting to purchase distribution systems in at least 15 cities. They have entered into contracts to sell power to various communities and industries for a 20-year period, and have agreed to supply firm power to other and larger cities.
The avowed purpose of the program is to effect a federal regulation of intrastate electric rates and service by a so-called "yardstick" method or "regulation by competition." The yardstick for wholesale rates is the wholesale rate charged by the Authority. It is unreasonable and confiscatory as a measure of complainants' rates in that it excludes the cost of the major part of the investment necessary to render the service, and excludes necessary operating expenses. The yardstick for retail rates is the sum of the wholesale rate and the amount which the Authority allows municipalities to add to the wholesale rate to cover cost of local distribution; it excludes many items of necessary cost of rendering the service.
Pursuant to a plan promulgated in 1933, defendants are conducting a systematic campaign for the purpose of disrupting the established business relations between complainants and their customers, destroying the good will built up by complainants, seizing their markets, and inciting the residents of communities served by them to cooperate with defendants in their scheme to develop an absolute monopoly.
With full knowledge of the noncompensatory and confiscatory character of the yardstick rates, they have represented to the inhabitants of communities served by complainants that these "yardsticks" were fair measures of reasonable rates, and have thereby attempted to incite the inhabitants to build publicly owned systems using power furnished by the Authority, to lead them to believe that they are being charged unreasonable rates, to stir up political agitation against privately owned utilities, and to bring complainants into disrepute and disfavor.
The defendants attempt to coerce complainants to sell distribution systems and transmission lines, in territories which defendants intend to appropriate at prices far below fair value by threatening that, unless complainants accede, they will construct, or cause to be constructed, duplicate facilities subsidized in construction and operation by federal funds and render complainants' properties wholly valueless. The Administrator of the Public Works Administration has cooperated with defendants. Defendants inform the owners that, unless they sell, either the Authority or the municipalities will build duplicate systems with federal funds. At defendants' request, the Administrator authorizes and announces a gift to the municipality of from 30% to 45% of the cost of the duplicate system and agrees to lend the balance, repayable out of earnings, if any, of the duplicate plant, upon condition that the municipality will agree to use power of the Authority and will, as soon as possible, oust the existing utility. If the utility agrees to sell, the allotments are cancelled without regard to the will of the municipality. This policy has already been applied in certain cities. The defendants and Administrator also cooperate to force municipalities to agree to purchase power furnished by the Authority by threats that otherwise federal allotments for public works will be cancelled or denied.
Defendants have caused bills, designed to forward their power program, to be submitted to the legislatures of various States in the area, and have lobbied for and brought about their passage. They have installed Authority personnel throughout the area to disseminate propaganda in behalf of the program. The Electric Home and Farm Authority (now defunct), a corporation set up as a governmental agency of which the individual defendants are directors, finances sale of electrical devices, prints and circulates costly advertising in praise of the Authority program. Defendants have offered to supply electricity to large industrial customers of some of the complainants at noncompensatory and discriminatory rates. They have attempted to persuade complainants' customers to break existing contracts. Complainants cannot meet this competition, because of the noncompensatory rates and because they are forbidden by state law to make discriminatory rates.
The bill prays invalidation of the Act as unconstitutional and injunction and other relief against defendants.
Unquestionably, the bill shows that complainants are not asserting a right held or complaining of an injury sustained in common with the general public. They allege facts that unmistakably show that each has a valuable right as a public utility, nonexclusive though it is, to serve in territory covered by its franchise, and that, inevitably, the value of its business and property used will suffer irreparable diminution by defendants' program and acts complained of. If, because of conflict with the Constitution, the Act does not authorize the enterprise formulated and being executed by defendants, then their conduct is unlawful and inflicts upon complainants direct and special injury of great consequence. Therefore, they are entitled to have this Court decide upon the constitutional questions they have brought here. See Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 262 U. S. 488; Frost v. Corporation Commission, 278 U. S. 515, 278 U. S. 521.”
*All text underscoring supplied.
What a prophetic piece of writing by the dissenting court! But the decision was that the court, incorrectly, ruled in this split decision that the TVA could compete, that any entity federal or otherwise could directly compete in our free-market system of government. That, of course, means that the overbearing weight of government can call all the shots to the disadvantage of the rest of our market economy.
But the main decision yet to come is the constitutionality of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Who has “standing” to bring such a suit? That must be left up to the legal scholars, perhaps to other governmental bodies. The grounds? Maybe that the TVA has been given billions of dollars that do not meet the threshold of benefits that apply to all American citizens; and perhaps in its parallel government standing. There is but one federal government, one Constitution, despite TVA actions to the contrary.
Ernest Norsworthy
emnorsworthy@earthlink.net
http://norsworthyopinion.com