 a television journal of the important issues of the hour, brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. A presentation of the Lawn Jean Wittner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lawn Jean. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope? Mr. William Bradford Huey, editor of the American Mercury, and Mr. Donald I. Rogers, an editor of the New York Herald Tribune. Our distinguished guest for this evening is Mr. Lewis V. Sutton, president of the Carolina Power and Light Company. The opinions expressed are necessarily those of the speakers. Mr. Sutton, a few weeks ago, we had Mr. Oscar Chapman, the interior secretary on our panel, and he presented for us the government's role in the production of electric power. Now, I know you as a representative of private industry have a very strong position on that. Could you tell us what it is, sir? We are opposed to further encroachment of the private power business by the government. Do you feel that there's a sinister influence when you say you have such opposition? I do. What is that? The private electric companies have built up a great industry. We are serving the people efficiently. Well, one of the few industries where the product has not increased over the years. We are big taxpayers. You mean where the price has not increased? The price has not increased. And we resent the government coming in and taking over the business and endeavoring to socialize the power business. Well, according to Mr. Chapman, when he was on this show, he made a case for a need for the government to step in and produce electric power. There's absolutely no need for the government to come in and furnish power. The private power companies have taken care of the situation in the past. There has not been a shortage of electric power. There's no shortage today in the territory served by the private companies. And we can take care of the situation. Now, he tied his case primarily to the need for flood control, irrigation control, soil erosion. Said that in building dams to take care of these things, they could also build hydroelectric facilities and thus produce electric power. Produce it, he said, cheaper than you of the private industries could produce it. Is this true? I do not think so. Now, Mr. Sutton, our audience, of course, is familiar with this long battle that's going on now between the private industry and government on the public power issue. Now, sir, first, what percentage of power that's being generated is now supplied to the American public by the government, the federal government? About 10%. And how much are you private people supplying? About 80%. And do you believe that it's in the public interest for you to continue to supply at least 80%? Very definitely, I do. And you are fighting now to maintain that ratio to see that the government doesn't encroach further on your 80% of the business? We are endeavoring to do that. Now, sir, it's been stated many times in the past that private utility companies maintain vast slush funds that you spend a lot of money on propaganda. Are you spending, is there a vast propaganda effort now on your part? There is not. The utility companies have been pitifully poor advertisers. I think one of the mistakes the industry has made has not been in going out and telling their story to the public. We think we've done a great job in developing the power industry and in giving the wonderful service we have at the low cost. But we have not told the people the story of what we are doing. But just for the sake of arguments, sir, how much are you spending for promotion of your facilities? Well, let me answer you this way. The industries in America as a whole, according to the recent issue of advertising age, are spending about 1% of their gross sales in advertising of all kinds, radio, television, newspaper, and magazine. The utility industry is spending less than one fourth of 1% of its gross sales. Further, the three large soap companies in this country are spending in their total advertising all of their costs from three to four times as much each year as their total utility industry is spending. Now, as against that pitifully small amount that we are doing, here is the federal government. There are many statements as to how much they are spending in propaganda, but the current issues of readers' digest has an article by Mr. Stanley Haas in which he speaks of the approximately 45,000 persons in the federal government who are putting out propaganda, and he estimates a cost of approximately $200 million a year. You think the federal government is spending far more on propaganda and has far more propagandists than you have? Many, many times. How is this just almost insignificant compared to that? Do you feel that this is one of the major mistakes of the utilities down through the years? You have not done this? I do. We haven't told our story to the people. Are you taking steps now to correct this? We are doing more of it now. We feel that the most powerful weapon we can use to protect ourselves is to give the public the truth and the facts concerning our industry. Mr. Sutton, I, of course, am a southerner like yourself, and I come from the TVA area. Now, let's get just this thing clear. Are the private utility companies opposed to the government's building a dam? No, not if it's justified. What do you mean justified? You believe that they ought to build dams for flood control, but not for the generation of power. Is that correct? Well, first of all, if I was going to try to take care of the problem of flood control, I wouldn't build a multipurpose dam down near the mouth of the river. I would go up in the headwaters where the damage is and put in numbers of small, dry dams, and do terracing and put on cover crops and do the many things to hold the water where it falls. Well, as a practical matter, the private companies expect to oppose vigorously the government's building any more dams such as were built by the TVA and in the Great Northwest. You're generally going to oppose the building of any more hydroelectric dams by the government. Is that correct? I can't speak for the industry, and I wouldn't like to make a blanket statement. But I, like any other taxpayer, I think would oppose money spent unwisely, uneconomically for dams or projects of impact. Do you think that the dams that have been built thus far, the highly publicized dams that have been built thus far, have not been in the public interest? Most of them, I would say, are not in the public interest. How about this uneconomic business you refer to? Isn't hydroelectric power cheaper than steam-produced power? No, although that is a statement that should be qualified. It depends upon the part of the country, the kind of streams, the competitive cost of fuel. This idea of cheap hydro power originated years ago when we had, as the other methods of producing power, the inefficient steam plants of those days. When it took three to four pounds of coal to make a kilowatt hour, there's been great progress in the development of steam, so that the efficient plants of today, steam-producing plants, steam-electric plants, produce a kilowatt hour for about nine, about eight-tenths of a pound of coal per kilowatt hour, as against three or four pounds years ago. Now, the cost of building the hydro plants has increased, and the better sites have been taken. The public doesn't realize that in the present efficient steam plants, one ounce of coal will make as generators more kilowatt hours than 25,000 gallons of water falling a distance of one foot. Now, that's a point, sir. The federal government undertook the hydroelectric plans, hydroelectric projects under the role of building flood control projects, not primarily to produce electric power. This was the tale of the dog. This was a byproduct of the flood control dams, was it not? That is correct. And that's the way it's set up in law. That is the way Congress intended. Does the federal government today produce any electric power by steam and coal? Today they are generating with steam, generating plants, and have under construction an aggregate in excess of three million kilowatts, which is equivalent to about four million horsepower, which could generate from 15 to 20 billion kilowatt hours a year. Mr. Sutton, is it fair to say that our vast atomic energy industry was created with power from the dams of the TVA and from the Northwest? Is it fair to say that we probably could not have developed the atomic energy to the point that we've not about it without that? Was the atomic bomb developed with hydroelectric power from TVA and from the Northwest, or was it developed with power from private industry? Well, at the one in the TVA area, the Oak Ridge plant, they put in a large generating plant of their own. They used construction power from TVA, and TVA at times gave them power, but they had their own power plant. Now, you are developing the big new bomb down in the Carolinas. Is the power there to be supplied by private industry or by the government-generated power? There's a lot of secrecy about the workings of the atomic energy plant, but from things I have seen in the paper, it appears that a minor part of the power, what they call certain vital power, is going to be furnished by a plant that the atomic energy crowd are putting in themselves. The greater amount of power is to be purchased from the local public utility company. Now, as a final question, sir, I'm sure that our audience would like a prediction from you as to just what's going to happen in the immediate future. Are the private power companies going to win the battle, or do you think that the government people will use power to sort of sub-diffuse to promote socialism? I'm sure they are going to endeavor to use power as a sub-diffuse to extend and socialize a business. The different moves that are made with respect to power are hard to understand by a person who's not familiar with the industry, but who, one, who is familiar. Every move is a well-thought-out plan to socialize or nationalize a power industry, and when they take over the power industry, they have a powerful weapon to control the people in most all industries. Well, thank you, Mr. Sutton, for these very forthright views. The editorial board for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Donald I. Rogers. Our distinguished guest was Mr. Lewis F. Sutton, president of the Carolina Power & Light Company. Are you interested in a watch of better than average accuracy? Then, let your choice be Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, for in every field of timing where accuracy is a challenge. Laun Jean watches enjoy a possession of preference in sports, in aviation, in science. For excellence, elegance, and accuracy, Laun Jean watches have been honored by 10 World's Fair Grand Prizes, 28 gold medals, and highest awards from the leading government observatories. Truly, the world's most honored watch. These are the reasons why the first choice of discriminating men and women throughout the world is Laun Jean. For in Laun Jean watches, they find those precious qualities of finer design, greater accuracy, and longer life, and yet do you know that you can buy and own or buy and proudly give a Laun Jean watch for as little as $71.50. Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch. Premier product of the Laun Jean Wittner Watch Company, since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. We invite you to join us every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday evening at this same time for The Laun Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important dishes of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner Distinguished Companion to the World Honored Laun Jean. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Laun Jean and Wittner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem. Agency for Laun Jean Wittner Watchers. This is the CBS television network.