Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 7 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
By GEORGE BOWLES
It would be very nearly impossible to overstate the economic and political implications of the coming legislative struggle over the proposed coal slurry pipeline.
The line would consist of a large underground conduit running from the coal fields of southwest Virginia to the Hampton Roads ports.
According to its supporters, the pipeline would carry the coal, which had been ground to small pellets and mixed with an equal quantity of water, from the mines to the ports far more cheaply than it can now be transported by railroads.
As an added benefit, the advocates suggest that once the coal is removed, the water could again be made useable and would help ease the on-going water shortage in the port cities.
The proponents of the pipeline include Vepco and the other utilities which contend that by reducing the cost of transporting the coal, which is used to fire their generators, they will be able to reduce the cost of power to their customers.
They say the line can be built at a cost of about one billion dollars.
Needless to say, the railroads are up in arms over the whole idea.
They dispute the utilities’ claim that the coal can be piped for slightly more than six dollars per ton instead of the $19 per ton it now costs to transport the coal by rail. Also they contend that the cost of the pipeline will be nearer two billion than to one billion dollars.
So how does the legislature get involved in what is essentially a hassle between two combinations of corporate giants?
In order to build the pipeline, the utilities must acquire the land for a rightof-way.
In cases where they encounter a property owner who is unwilling to convey the right-of-way to them, they will need condemnation authority, under the right of eminant domain, to acquire it. Such authority for the utilities, under present law, does not exist. So the pipeline proponents plan to have a bill introduced by a friendly legislator which would create a legal basis for the condemnation authority they need. They also have come up with a strategy which they believe will make the measure highly attractive to lawmakers. That strategy is to have the General Assembly shift the authority for making the condemnation decision from itself to the State Corporation Commission. It is a shrewd maneuver in that it provides the
97.0%