Chapter 4: National Defense

CHAPTER 4 National Defense One of the announced purposes of TVA is to contribute to national defense. The following statement by a columnist in The Washington Post of March 31, 1948, is typical of the many such claims about TVA's contribution to the war effort: "Without TVA power, the aluminum to build 50,000 airplanes a year during the war could never have been produced. If TVA had not been built, the war might have lasted two or three years longer. These are demonstrable facts." Thus it would appear that TVA was primarily responsible for the production of about 200,000 airplanes! And since TVA might have shortened the war by "two or three years," it would appear that TVA deserves full and exclusive credit for saving two or three million American lives and hundreds of billions of American dollars. It is impossible to make an accurate comparison between the war effort of TVA and, for instance, the United States Steel Corporation. But one might argue that if it hadn't been for United States Steel, the resulting shortage of ships, tanks and landing barges would have caused the war to last five to ten years longer.

Thus the United States Steel Corporation, like TVA, would appear to deserve full and exclusive credit for saving the lives of possibly ten million American soldiers. And the number of dollars thus saved by United States Steel would exceed the limits of imagina30 NATIONAL DEFENSE tion. At least that seems to be the reasoning used by the abovementioned TVA enthusiast. The probable truth of the matter is that if there had been no United States Steel Corporation the war would not have lasted one minute longer. There would have been other steel companies. Or the existing steel companies that now compete with United States Steel would have been considerably larger. That idea also applies to TVA. But many people seem to believe that TVA brought the first electricity into Tennessee; that TVA was the inventor of the hydroelectric dam. Of course, there were hydroelectric dams — and electric lights in Tennessee homes — long before TVA arrived on the scene. TVA took over the hydro dams and the electrical facilities that had been built by private enterprise.

Naturally, TVA expanded those existing facilities and built new facilities. Would private electric companies in Tennessee have done otherwise? Private companies have doubled and trebled their production in many other sections of this nation before — and after — TVA came into existence. Can it be logically assumed that they would not also have continued to meet the full demand for electricity in Tennessee if government had not forced them out of business? Naturally, TVA did contribute a part of its facilities to the war effort. But so did other private and public agencies. A little thought on the matter should cause one to realize that TVA's contribution to the war effort was at most only a tiny fraction of one per cent of the total war effort. This includes whatever electricity TVA may have sold to the private company that contracted to produce the atomic bomb. Since this particular subject is still concealed by censorship, the amount of electricity used in the process is not known. But we do know that a 238,000 kilowatt steam plant was installed at Oak Ridge when the atomic plant was built.29 As the Vice Chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic TVA AND U. S. STEEL COMPARED; ATOM BOMB 31 Energy recently said: ". .. in order to make sure that the Commission's activities at Oak Ridge would not be completely dependent upon TVA power during slack periods, it has constructed and is operating a steam generating plant, and ... in times past has sold its surplus power back to TVA. So the answer is that if the Atomic Energy Commission needs additional power, and there is some indication that it does, the way to get it is not to rely on TVA, but simply to expand its presently operated steam-generating plant at Oak Ridge, which I understand can be done by the installation of one additional boiler."30 If there had been no TVA, we would have produced the atomic bomb just the same. If there had been no TVA, there seems to be no logical reason whatever to assume that the war would have lasted any longer than it did last.

Finally, it is true that the production of electricity — like the production of many other products — necessarily has a vital part in any discussion or plan for national security. This may include types and sizes of generating stations, transmitting and switching facilities, and reserve capacities. It may include additional interconnections among the existing privately owned power stations, even though the immediate expense in some cases may be greater than the resulting economies. It may include adequate consultation among federal and state regulatory agencies, the armed forces, the electrical equipment industry, and the power producing companies themselves. Necessarily, since government is charged with the primary responsibility for adequate national defense, government must play an important role in these discussions and plans. But none of these measures indicates any necessity whatever for government to take over the electrical industry "for reasons of security." If uneconomic, peace-time reserves and locations are deemed necessary, is there any logical reason why government can't pay pri32 NATIONAL DEFENSE vate industry to build them and to maintain them on a stand-by schedule?

Is there any more reason why government should use military security as an excuse for nationalizing the electrical industry than there would be for nationalizing the steel or transportation industries? In truth, our experience in winning two world wars shows that the best possible national security lies in the encouragement of private industry to make more automobiles, nylon hosiery, and aluminum pots and pans for a profit. This automatically insures the building of more electrical capacity — at no cost to the taxpayers. It also insures adequate reserve capacities for building tanks, uniforms, guns and airplanes when the need arises.