ML17139A426
| ML17139A426 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1981 |
| From: | ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17139A427 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110050198 | |
| Download: ML17139A426 (16) | |
Text
NOTICE THE ATTACHED FILES ARE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE DIVISION OF DOCUMENT CONTROL. THEY HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO YOU FOR A LIMITED TIME PERIOD AND MUST BE RETURNED TO THE RECORDS FACILITY BRANCH 016. PLEASE DO NOT SEND DOCUMENTS CHARGED OUT THROUGH THE MAIL. REMOVAL OF ANY PAGE(S) FROM DOCUMENT FOR REPRODUCTION MUST BE REFERRED TO FILE PERSONNEL.
DEADLINE RETURN DATE
/a C.:.-.:;-, ~'- 8 I!oo5'4 jg p
Pi"Q J~";" >.""f il""'."."I'.:2
ttotttnsostony RSC Comtxtdgo Spttntts u
roe~no Sutttson County RSC
.J
~l ic s
ussox ~
Unttoot SC u
/g "'
,n potttor Oudols gl t y
y trow Snlorpst
~r Allegheny Electric Cooperative Members Providing low cost dependable electrlcty to 158,000 member/consumers In Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
sewing In 44 counties 156 directors - 698 employees 23,689 miles of line 1.7 billion KWH purchased annually 158,000 member/consumers $ 242,000,000 invested in plant
6~el'gy Projects NUCLEAR 10% ownership in the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
HYDRO Identifying and planning the use of existing dams for electric generation.
ANTHRACITE COAL Exploring the feasibility of a large mine-mouth generating plant in the, anthracite region.
SYNTHETIC FUELS Exploring the potential of a generating station fueled by medium BTU coal-derived gas, to be built in conjunction with a major synfuels plant under study in Western Pennsylvania.
WIND Operation of two wind turbines to study the economic and technical feasibility of this form of generation in Pennsylvania.
GROUND WATER Installation of ground water heat pumps to determine economic and technical impact on water and space heating and
- cooling, LOAD MANAGEMENT Operation of test systems to control water heaters in order to reduce electricity consumption during peak demand periods.
President's Repoirl' am pleased to report that substantial progress area in 1981. The second is that the NRC has started was made during'1980. to make some progress in licensing activities on nuclear plants. All license work had come to a Perhaps the most important progress in the complete halt as a result of TMI. We look forward to viewpoint of the member systems was the license progress on Susquehanna in 1981.
Transmission Committee progress in developing As 1980 ended, it began to look like the anti-guidelines under which Allegheny Electric nuclear tide had turned and maybe the nation wili Cooperative will pro- once again look at the alternatives and decide that vide transmission nuclear power is not as dangerous as the scare facilities. As Allegheny tactics. put forth by the anti-nuclear groups, would Electric Cooperative lead the public-at-large to believe. Your Allegheny evolves into a "full Electric Cooperative has a lot at stake in this area service" generation due to our 10% ownership of the Susquehanna and transmission Nuclear Plant. Printed elsewhere in this report is cooperative, the "T Allegheny Electric Cooperative's statement on transmission portion will nuclear energy adopted by the Board ln 1980.
become very im-portant in reducing Speaking of nuclear energy and how public outages and Im- policy changed from nuclear development to one proving continuity of of opposition, it is fascinating to look at nuclear ivice. energy in other nations. Forexample, France expects to bring a new nuclear unit on line EVERY TWO On the energy MONTHS on the average between 1980 and 1985. It management and JOMSS HSACISFSOll Is also 'interesting to note that France is going conservation front, Resident forward in developing and building "fast breeder Allegheny was one of five Cooperatives in the United reactors" to generate electric power. It is estimated States selected to receive the President's Award for that the fast breeder reactor multiplies the energy Energy Efficiency. Additionally, Allegheny was potential of natural uranium sixty to seventy times.
awarded grants by the Electric Power Research All of us in rural electrification, dedicated to Institute and the U.S. Department of Energy to providing paver at as Iow a cost as possible, must continue research into the ground water and work to get nuclear power to the point where it can ground-coupled heat pump. provide a substantial portion of our generation I regret the further delays on the operation capacity.
schedule of the Susquehanna nuclear station. Although there are many obstacles and There are two good news events pertaining to challenges to overcome in planning ahead for your nuclear power. The first Is that Congress made a future power supply. the true spirit of cooperation small start on waste disposal legislation in 1980. We and working together for mutual benefits, will are optimistic for additional legislation in this "key" provide the energy to accomplish our objectives.
t, <<.'r j Board >
of Directors James Henderson Myron Ludwlck John Anstadt Robetrtt Stetrett Prsldenl ~ Sussex Vlcc prestdent a Warren Secrelary 0 Sutttran Treasurer ~ Central po ~i t
!o!
! rs!
J 'l
-)
l
~!pe<
Clair O..Butetbaugh John Drake Uoyd Dugan, Sr. Don Hill Harold Hines uuttrwest Central Zrtoounty Voaey r '-.
1 j I I 1!
)>
j.-/x Q F
)
Harris Horn Robert E. Leonard Dennis Shatter hj~- .-
Benlamln Slick Hiram Walker Untied Hew EnNrpdse Employees 1
1! "
I
- David L Mohre Wllllam E. Mowalt Engtneertng/Power Supply Oeneral Counsel otrector 5 Assi sant Secretary Wllllam F. Matson ExecuNve Vlcc Presldenl b
Oenend Manager nX-j't.
, rpo$
C. D. Blackburn ij. J pu~Sb h Dudlck trs otrectcr Paul H. Telherow Asststant Oeneral Manager
General Manager' Report In spite of rapldly- categorized as progressing predictably, though not escalatlng prices, without its share of frustrations. Inactivity on the part constant increases in g l of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may 1
the energy markets, (pe account for licensing delays on the Susquehanna and two reductions in 7 Plant that could cost electric consumers in our allocation of low- Pennsylvania more than S1 million per day on this cost PASNY power, plant atone. Add to that the $ 400,000 a day Allegheny Electric attributed to a dormant Three Mile Island Unit I and Cooperative can it becomes clear what Inaction on the part of a report to its member- regulatoiy agency can cost consumers.
ship that 1980 has Allegheny's Investigations into the feasibility of an been successful in anthracite-fired generating plant, which would several areas. First and foremost, Allegheny boost the sagging economy of the hard coal region was able to refund to in northeastern Pennsylvania, has moved along our members over $ 4 more rapidly than anticipated. We are expecting WllllcmrA F. Mafson "first draft" price quotes from Consolidation Coal million ln rate settle-ments from our major Company, one of the potential coal suppliers for the power suppliers. These General Manager proJect, in mid-1981.
refunds helped to keep the Increases in our There was also good news on the nuclear fuels wholesale power cost to our members within reason front. Our partners in the Susquehanna Plant settled In this extremely Inflationary period. The added a damage suit with General Atomic Corporation good news is that our projections for 1981 suggest (GAC). As a party to that suit, Allegheny will share In that little or no increase in our basic wholesale the settlement which will allow us to completely power rates will be required. recover our investment in the URADCO mining As mentioned, Allegheny experienced two venture, plus provide us with an assured supply of reductions in our allocation of low-cost PASNY power yellowcake at'well below proJect market costs for a during the year. These actions contributedheavlly to number of years In the future.
the need for Allegheny to Increase its rates to In 1980, Allegheny also received a refund of members. It was fifteen years ago - July 28, 1966- S3,373,180.00 from the treasury of the when the original deliveries of hydroelectric power Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This was the result from the Power Authority of the State of New York of an order of the Board of Finance and Revenue, (PASNY) began to flow to our members. Through the granting Allegheny's Petition for Refund of this years, our share of that economical power has amount paid under protest during 1979 under the shrunk considerably. Nevertheless, if in 1980 our Pennsylvania Public Utility Realty Tax Act (PURTA).
PASNY power had been replaced by wholesale During the last part of 1980, the new team in purchases from Penelec and Met-Ed, the additional Washington made attacks on the REA Loan cost to our members would have been S16,200,000. Program. Responding to these initiatives has taken At present, Allegheny is fighting for that already- its share of time, expense, and nervous energy from curtailed allocation of Niagara power, now being us all. At stake, of course, is access to the Federal challenged by several northeastern states. We feel Financing Bank (FFB) for G&T cooperatives with under the law these states have no right to expect Federal loan guarantees. We have every reason to any allocation - and certainly not a share of ours. In believe that if a strong, united, national effort In years to come we can continue to expect defense of the REA program continues, we will be significant activity by Allegheny in an area ~hlch able to retain a strong rural electric credit program.
was virtually unknown a short time ago, that of the almost never-ending challenges to the Federal While most of the Forbes 500 corporations Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) with regard probably would have to agree that it was just to this low-cost source of power. another year, those of us deeply involved in Our efforts to become more Independent of our Allegheny have to say that it seemed like one of the major power suppliers moved ahead well during toughest ever, but then we haven't seen what the 1980. Considerable progresswas made on our hydro next fewyears may bring. Throughout1980, the close working relationships between Allegheny board development activities. A license application was members, employees of member cooperatives, and filed with FERC on the Raystown project, and we Allegheny staff has been responsible for timely received funding from DOE for detailed feasibility completion of many Important projects which have studies of Allegheny Locks and Dams 8 and 9. significantly enhanced our overall operation. For The Susquehanna Steam Electric Station can be the cooperation, we are grateful.
I'INANCIAlREVIEW Operating Revenue capitalized and allocated to the Susquehanna The operating revenue of Allegheny increased by Plant.
8.5 million (20% for the fiscal year which ended December 31, 1981) and is comprised solely of sales Net Margins to members. Allegheny's net margin for 1980 was S2.9 million compared to S2.1 million In 1979. This is an Increase 1980 S51,123,060 of 35%. The Increase In net margins was because
'Allegheny's actual sales were less than what was budgeted in 1980 and at the same time, expenses 1979 S42,589.089 were under the proJected budgeted amount.
Financing The revenue generated from sales increased S8.5 Allegheny's continued Involvement In the million even though the kilowatt hour sales Susquehanna Plant will require additional funds increased by only 12.9 million KWH (0.8%). The during 1981 to be advanced by the Federal revenue increase from sales Is due largely to the rate increases which were necessitated by the reduction Financing Bank. There is a possibility that during 1981, Allegheny may be forced to go to the open of previously-apportioned PASNY power, and the market to obtain future financing, However, it Is continuing pass-through of the fuel charges. hoped that the Federal Financing Bank will remain intact as Allegheny's prime source of borrowing.
Operating Expenses There are a number of projects Allegheny is The general operating expenses Increased in 1980 anticipating or considering at this time, and by S7.6 mlllton, This was due largely to the increased front-end monies needed for these proJects will costs of purchased power (19.3%). Also during 1980, come from either CFC or RFA During the calendar general and administrative expenses increased year Allegheny was issued an additional S56,919,000 S123 000 or 166%. This was mainly'due to Allegheny's In long-term debt from the Federal Financing Bank.
increased Involvement with EPRI as well as a number The current combined rate of interest for these of engineering feasibility studies and projects monies Is 11.631%.
undertaken in 1980. It fs essential In the coming years ghat Allegheny be able to maintain a strong financial base and Other Revenue that its equity level continue to strengthen. We are currently striving to maintain these positions by using Allegheny's interest Income for 1980 was S555,776. a sound money management program.
This Is compared to S146,816 in 1979, or an increase negotiating the best possible power purchase of 279%. During 1980,.because of the extremely high contracts, apd by our continued effort In tnterest rates available on investments, continued monitoring Allegheny's expenses in order that our emphasis was placed on the matter of money overhead be kept at a minimum.
rnanagernenf. At all times during the year, Allegheny was able fo keep Its funds working, During 1980,Allegheny received from EPRI a grant
%hereby making the optimum use of each available In the amount of S50.000. This grant Is forresearch in dollar. We feel that this money management the field of energyconseivatton. The funds are for the program ls well worth the time and effort expended. purchase of monitoring equipment such as computers and meters, travel, and related expenses tn the operation of this equipment In order that a Interest Charges proper evaluation carl be performed on the systems The interest on the tong-term debt increased by being tested. The systems consist of two ground S6,300000 (489%). This is the interest chargedby the water heat pumps Installed In two homes In the Federal Financing Bank on the monies which have Bedford and New Enterprise areas.
been advanced to Allegheny for its involvement tn Also during 1980, Allegheny applied for and the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station in Beiwlck, received from the Department of Energy a Pennsylvania. This figure willcontinue to grow in 1981 forgivabIe loan in the amount of S100,000. This loan is because of Allegheny's continued involvementwith for a feasibility study for Locks and Dams 8 and 9 the Susquehanna Plant and also because of the located on the Allegheny River In Western tncreased interest rates now in effect. During the Pennsylvania. These funds were receivedfor the year of 1980,Allegheny did not use Its line of credit purpose of determining the feasibility of these small with CFC and at no time during the year were any scale hydro projects. If the projects are deemed short-term funds borrowed. Therefore, atl of the infeaslbte, then the loan funds may be forgiven by Interest charges are on a long-term basis, Ali were the Secretaiy of Energy.
Balance Sheet (Audited)
Assets 'i 980 1979 Utility Plant In Service S 12.039,819 S 7,438,926 Construction Work In Progress 229,748,469 173,701,203 Total Plant 241,788,288 181,140,129 Accumulated Provision for Depreciation (66,654) (41.352)
Net Plant S241,721,634 S181,098,777 Non-Utility Properly - Net 6,658,496
, Capital Credits - NRUCFC 612,056 607,240 Investments in Associated Organizations 1,634,964 4,381,064 Cash - General Funds 27,795 '25,656 Cash - Construction/Working, Funds 3,725,852 3.587A10 Temporal Investments 3,305,000 1,037.000 Accounts Receivable 9,344,654 8,685,866 Other Current & Accrued Assets 143,240 42,921 Deferred Debits 1A44A35 1,618,397 Total Assets S268,318,126 S201,084,331 1980 'f 979 Liabilities Memberships S . 2,800 S 2,800 Patronage Capital 11,329,301 8,M9,752 Donated Capital 29,665 29,665 Long Term Debt - REA 239,956,000 183.037,000 Long Term Debt - Other 3,243,529 Accounts Payable 9,429,191 ,8,386.064 Accrued Interest 84,038 35,162 Other Current &. Accrued Uabllities 1,085,989 1,075,734 Deferred Credits 3,157,613 8,154 Total Liabilities S268,318.126 S201,084,331 Member Revenues 1980 '1979 Adams Electric Cooperative, Inc, S 6,225,061.93 S 5,213560.16 Bedford Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. 2,316,682.84 1,965,522.59 Central'Electric Cooperative, Inc. 4,975,920.66 4,080,577.51 Claverack Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. 3,906,778.58 3,311386.00 New Enterprise Rural Electric Cooperative, inc. 941,901.57 796.629.29 Northwestern Rural Electric Cooperative Assn. Inc. 5,242,740.22 4A68,199.71 Somerset Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. 4.919.086.65 4,063,345.84 Southwest Central Rural Electric Cooperative Corp. 6A30,996.83 5,31 7,066.82 Sullivan County Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. 1,092507.74 895,240.27 Sussex Rural Electric Cooperative 2A53,578.40 1,962,059.49 Triounty Rural Electric Cooperative, inc. 3,364,007.50 2,821,159.36 United Electric Cooperative, Inc. 3,603,828.16 2,970,617.28 Valley Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. 4,376,195.66 3,711 A42.02 Warren Electric Cooperative, Inc. 1,273,773.70 1,020,639.17 TOTAL S51,123,060A4 S42,597A46.51
PERCENTAGE Wholesale Power Cost COST IN COST IN OF.
Power Authority of the State of New York DOLLARS MILLS/KWH TOTAL COST (PASNY) S3,007,771 5.42 M/KWH 6.20%
West Penn 3,343,993 23.56 M/KWH 6.90%
JCP&L 3,812,234 47.66 M/KWH 7.86%
Metropolitan Edison 5,079,141 50.39 M/KWH 10.48%
Peneiec 28,788,825 36.09 M/KWH 59.37%
Sub-Total $ 44,031,964 26.28 M/KWH ,
90.81%
Transmission Costs (Wheeling for PASNY Power)
New York Companies S 676,080 0.40 M/KWH 1.40%
G.P.U. Companies 2,715,762 1.62 M/KWH 5.60%
Sub-Total 3,391,842 2.02 M/KWH 7.00%
Total Power Supply Expense S47A23,806 28.30 M/KWH 97.81%
Other Expenses Customer Accts.
Admln. & General S1,064,200 0.64 M/KWH 2.19%
Depreciation &. Amortization Total Operating Expense S48,488,006 28.94 M/KWH 1980 PURCHASED POWER SOURCES COST OF OPERATIONS BY PERCENTAGE 31 DECEMBER 1980 DOLLAR DISTRIBUTION TOTAL KWH 1,675,479,842 1C PASNY WHEELING 2C ADMINISTRATION& GENERAL 6cfg 'C PASNY GPU WHEEUNG 7c WEST PENN
[g~gp~
8C JCP&L MET-ED 59C PENELEC
'ENELEC 47.6%
PASNY JCP&L 4.8%
WEST PENN MET-ED 8.5% 6%
'onthly MW Demand
~j I 1979 1980 385 362 389 371 372 362 31S 318 267 281 256, 254 245 254 251 261 261 269 283 280 311 329 369 3 74 J F tI1 A t>>1 J J A 8 0 N 0 Purchased power fuel types Coal 56% C3 '9% Oil Hydro 34% H O 1% Nuclear Yearly KWH Percentage of Increase 1700 2 9', Q,78% '!
1600 1500 1400 7A5%
8.75%
4.98%
=-'0 I Lippy 1300 6.77%
688%,
1200 IIM gg /pe l ptI) 10OO i e
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 22.0 19.4
,+".al Average Wholesale Power Cost
~
(-'Ar 1970 - 'l980 13.8 13.0 C~p'llegl 124
~--"( p 45 J~Q
&3 &5 8.6,-
8.2 qr
~~)
0-4. (
!~
>>~! $ I,!.'.9 ying
- .,( 1
~II) i, w(:)
gj'.
L P gl>>
<(I)
J'8 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 79
Review of Power Cosh As of December 31, 1980, Allegheny's average purchased power cost from its five wholesale power suppliers reached 28.30 MILLS/KWHor 2.830'/KWH, Last year, average cost reached 23.93 MILLS/KWH.
Accordingly, total power cost dollars rose from S39,790,671.48 ln 1979 to S47,423,806.47 in 1980. This represents a substantial increase of S7,633,134.99or 19.2 percent in only one year.
A small portion of this power cost increase can be directly attributed to normal system toad growth which automatically requires Allegheny to purchase additional high cost supplemental power J h Zullo Richard Osborne from the Pennsylvania Electric Company and ~Vnglneer Slalt Engineer Metropolitan Edison. Total system power requirements increased from 1,662,548,241 KWH in Aside from the increase caused by the PASNY 1979 to 1,675A79,842 in 1980 an increase of only reduction. Allegheny's total 1980 purchased power 12,931,601 KWH or 0.8 percent. System peak cost rose approximately two million dollars because demand actually decreased from 389 MW in 1979 of increased wholesale power costs from to 374 MW In 1980 or by 3.7 percent. However, a new Metropolitan Edison Company and Jersey Central system peak of 396 MW was established in January Power and Light. Average cost from Met-Ed of 1981. increased from 39.03 MILLS/KWH in 1979 to 50.39 MILLS/KWH in 1980. Likewise, average cost from Jersey Central Increased from 35.26 MILLS/KWH in 1979 to 47.66 MILLS/KWH in 1980. Both of these significant Increases were a direct result of increased fuel adjustment charges caused by the Three Mile Island accident. Ironically, base rates l charged by Met-Ed, Jersey Central, and Penelec P'=, were actually reduced in 1980 as a result of j/ settlement agreements reached with the three companies. r Alvaro Domlngos Jan Ivanott Stall Engineer Englneerlng Aide The majorityof the purchased power cost Increase was due to the reduction ofAllegheny's allocation of low-cost hydro power furnished by the Power Authority of the State of New York. On January 1, 1980, the Power Authority reduced Allegheny's hydro allocation from 130 MW of firm power and associated energy at system load factor to 105 MW of firm power and associated energy at system load Anthony Adontslo Asshhml Oenercd Counsel Edward Stevens Accounlanl factor and 25 MW of peaking power with a fixed load factor of 12.5 percent. Unfortunately, this low During 1980, Allegheny's total purchased power cost hydro power was replaced with additonal high cost represented 92.9 percent of the total required cost supplemental power purchases from the operating revenue. Even though the PASNY Pennsylvania Electric Company. Subsequently, on allocation had been reduced, this non-polluting, June 1, 1980, Allegheny's PASNY allocation was dependable, low-cost hydro power from the Power further reduced to 86 MW of firm power and Authority saved Allegheny and each of its member associated energy at system load factor and 21 MW cooperatives a total of S16,207,929.60 on purchased of peaking power with a fixed load factor of 12.5 power expense. Without PASNY power, average percent. Again, additional supplemental power purchased power cost would have increased from was purchased from Penelec. Year-end figures 28.3Q.MILLS/KWH to 38.00 MILLS/KWHan increase indicate that Allegheny's total 1980 purchased of 9.70 MILLS or 34.2 percent. Our legal and power cost Increased by approximately five million engineering departments continue to work with the dollars due to this allocation reduction. Further Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to maintain reduction of the valuable energy resource wouldbe our PASNY current allocation through the end ofthe disastrous for Allegheny's member cooperatives. present contract which expires in 1985.
number of interrelated events, the restart of Unit 1 may occur near the end of 1981. Based upon this very significant assumption, Allegheny now projects that its total average purchased power cost for1981 should reach 29A1 MILLS/KWH. This represents an increase of only 1.09 MILLS or 3.8 percent over 1980.
Average power cost to member cooperatives is now projected at 31.13 MILLS/KWHin 1981 as compared to 30.51 MILLS/KWHduring 1980. This represents an increase of on/ 0.62 MILLS or 2.0 percent. These minimal power cost increases are a direct result of Robert S. Hom Wllllam Loaan reduced system load growth.
sa a oirector Coorcs actor ot SpecTal Protects In conjunction with Allegheny's average cost of purchased power, the cost of wholesale power purchased by member cooperatives from Allegheny increased from 25.62 MILLS/KWH in 1979 to an average of 30.51 MILLS/KWH in 1980 an increase of 4.89 MILLS. In total dollars, member purchased power cost Allegheny's revenue increased from $ 42,589,089.06 in 1979 to
$ 51,123,060.43 in 1980. This represents an increase of S8,533,971.37 or 20.0 percent over last year. Of this total increase, 90.0 percent was required to cover the increased purchased power costs discussed David MoffN Elizabeth Brcwrn production upenrtsor previously. The remaining 10.0 percent contributed to increased engineering expenses and margins as Allegheny's policy is and has always been, that approved by the Board of Directors. any cash refund received from a wholesale power supplier as a result of a rate case settlement before the fERC will be refunded fn its entirety, plus any accumulated interest, to member cooperatives. In April 1980, Allegheny refunded S2,901,513.19 to members as a result of rate case settlements reached with Penelec and Jersey Central. In August, Allegheny refunded an additional S708,668.79 to members as a result of a similar rate case settlement negotiated with Met-Ed. In total, 1980 power cost t refunds amounted to S3,610.181.98. No further t refunds are pending during 1981.
Denelce Chubb Fred Fritz Sookkeeper S e JT Inshuctor Turning now to current rate-related matters, through the efforts of Allegheny's special counsel William C. Wise, Southern Engineering Company of c Georgia, and the Allegheny staff, the three major wholesale rate cases filed by Penelec, Met-Ed, and Jersey Central were contested before the federal ),
Energy Regulatory Commission and eventually ' 'I I,. I'.-.
settled without fERC hearings. Both the Penelec and Jersey Central rate reductions became effective with the March, 1980 power billings to Allegheny. In July, the Met-Ed wholesale rate was also reduced in Roseann Kovach Joanne 2fnn legislative Res>>each Assistant SxecutN>> Sect>>larr accordance with the settlement terms. These rate settlements reduced Allegheny's total purchased power cost by approximately four million dollars or Hopefully, next year's Annual Report will confirm 7.2 percent. that aveiage purchased power costs to member cooperatives .remained relatively constant during As of this writing, Allegheny expects that the GPU 1981. Keeping the price of electricity our most companies (Penelec, Met-Ed, and Jersey Central) dependable and economical energy resource will not file major wholesale rate increases before the reasonable has always been one of Allegheny's fERC until sometime after Unit 1 of the Three Mile primary functions; to the ummate benefit of Island Nuclear Generating Station returns to member/consumers in Pennsylvania and New commercial operation. Depending upon a Jersey.
Energy Update SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION Construction of the Susquehanna plant operating license was made on March 31, 1980 by continued at an accelerated pace during 1980. Allegheny and Pennsylvania Electric Company Unit 1 is essentially %% complete. Unit 2 is (joint owners). The 20.3 run-of-the-river project will approximately HK complete. Should the Nuclear produce an average of 77 million KWH of energy Regulatory Commission (NRC) grant the plant an annually. Although the project has generally Operating License consistent with construction received positive support from state and local progress, the units will go into service in May of 1982 interests, Allegheny has been required to perform a and March of 1983 respectively. Unfortunately, number of baseline environmental studies to insure although many of the post-TMI issues have now that the project will prove to be environmentally been addressed, the NRC has found it difficult to benign. For instance, a fish sampling study has "catch up" with their existing workload, giving rise to continued throughout the year to determine the fears of a delay in the granting of an Operating types and quantity of fish in the proposed water License for the Susquehanna units. Both Allegheny intake area. The FERC license is expected in 1981, and PP&L have been working diligently to prevent Construction should begin in 1982 with plant such a delay, one that could cost Allegheny's operation scheduled for 1985.
members millions of dollars annually.
Contracts for nuclear fuel for the Susquehanna ALLEGHENYRIVER LOCKSAND DAMS 8 and 9 plant have been executed through 1995. The ln June, Allegheny received a preliminary permit majority of the contracts will provide fuel at a price from FERC, giving it the exclusive right to study the substantially below that anticipated prior to the feasibility of hydroelectric generation at these sites recent softening of the uranium market. The first for a two-year period. The two sites, located in the delivery of fuel to the site is currently scheduled for same general area of the Allegheny River in June, 1981. Armstrong County, are being evaluated as a single Several important construction milestones were project. Acres American of Columbia, Maryland, completed during 1980. First the reactor vessel of was awarded a contract to complete the feasibility Unit 1 was flushed with a million gallons of water to study and license application. Preliminary results remove construction debris. Second, the vessel was from analysis to date indicate excellent project subjected to and passed a hydrostatic test that potential with an estimated capacity of 13 MWand subjected fhe reactor vessel to 1,600 pounds per 17 MW at No. 8 and No. 9 respectively. Combined square inch of pressure for a short duration with annual generation from the two units will approach longer duration tests at 1,100 psi. Third, the 540 foot 190 million KWH.
cooling tower for Unit 1 was completed in October. The two sites have also been granted a Finally, the massive turbine generator at Unit 1 was forgivable feasibility study loan from the placed on the turning gear in mid-December. The Department of Energy. This foan, intended to turning gear will rotate the turbine generator three encourage the development 'of small hydro times per minute to prevent thewelght ofthe system generation at existing dams, will greatly assist from bending its shalts. The placing of the turbine Allegheny in the costly front-end studies required for generator on the turning gear is considered a major projects of this type.
mlleslone for any large generating station.
EMSWORTH AND MONTGOMERY A three-year preliminary permit was granted to Allegheny by FERC in March to study the feasibility of a hydroelectric installation at the existing Emsworth Lock and Dam site on the Ohio River. The Chas. T.
Main Company of Boston was selectecf to perform the project feasibility study and prepare the license application should the project prove feasible.
~ ~
Preliminary studies place the installed capacity at 20-25 MW, generating an average of 135 million KWH annually.
Charteen Beachler MaiyJane Branlgan A sister project at the Montgomeiy Lock and Dam
~ crelary CFnhal Rle/Secnkuy is still uncter review by FERC to determine which of several competing license applicants will be RAYSTOWN awarded a preliminary permit for study and licensing. Allegheny is expecting to receive the Application to the Federal Energy Regulatoiy preliminary permit based on earlier filing date and Commission (FERC) for a construction and competitive project development.
ANTHRACITE GENERATING STATION LOAD MANAGEMENT Through the continued good efforts of Lt. Governor In order to reduce its system peak loads and help Scranton and his office, an agreement was reached keep its members'lectric costs reasonable between Consolidation Coal Company of Allegheny embarked on a two-year test of load Pittsburgh and Reading Anthracite Company to management systems for control of water heater begin evaluating 3,500 acres in Tamaqua, loads. During 1980, the test period for the installed Pennsylvania as a possible site fora large anthracite equipment commenced at four member coal mine. This development is a major step forward cooperatives.
for Allegheny and its partners Pennsylvania Power Two af the projects, located at Claverack Rural and Light and Philadelphia Electric Company- Electric Cooperative and Northwestern Rural Electric who together are investigating the economic Cooperatvice began operation in Februaiy and feasibility of a large anthracite-fired generating March respectively. With the exception of downtime station in the area. Both the federal Environmental for repair and some modification of equipment, Protection Agency and state offices such as the each systemhas controlled about150water heaters Department of Environmental Resources have lent during peak demand periods, allowing the active support to the project, which, if constructed, cooperatives to experiment with different control will provide both economic and environmental schedules for shedding and restoring water heater benefit to the local area and to Pennsylvania load. This will provide a good working knowledge of consumers. load use patterns, especially as they change from During 1981, Allegheny and its partners will season to season.
continue to evaluate the social, economic and The other two projects at Somerset Rural Electric environmental parameters associated with the Cooperative and Adams Electric Cooperative have project based on preliminary cost data output from been delayed by redesign work on water heater Consolidation Coal. By year end, Allegheny and its switches and in the Adams case, relocation of the partners expect to be able to make a go, n~o load management transmitter.
decision on more detailed project planning studies. WIND ENERGY Given the current licensing and construction lead Through the combined efforts of Allegheny, times for a project of this size, the plant could be Southwest Central Rural Electric Cooperative, placed in service in the early to mid-1990's. NRECA and Alcoa, an 8 KW Vertical Axis Wind Turbine was installed near Ebensburg, Pennsylvania.
SYNTHETIC FUELS GENERATING PROJECT From the very beginning, the windmill has been Allegheny is evaluating the potential of a plagued with mechanical equipment problems.
medium-scale 75-225 MW combined cycle Throughout most of the year, the unit was operated generating station fueled by medium BTU coal- for only short testing periods generally when derived gas. The project would be built in technicians were at fhe site. These tests Indicated conjunction with a large synthetic fuels plant the need for major redesign of the unit's blade currently under study by the federal Synthetic Fuels supports and main bearing equipment. The Corporation and the AC. Valley Corporation. AC. recently-installed redesigned unit has generated 80 KWH to date while using 60KWH for starting purposes Valley has a proposal before the Synthetic Fuels Corporation requesting loan guarantees for the (this windmill requires motor starting to get up to project which, as proposed, would be capable of speed).
producing 10,000 barrels per day of gasoline
.derived from high-sulphur bituminous coal. The process would first convert coal to medium BTU gas using the Koppers gasification process. Next the medium BTU gas would be converted to methanol using the ICI gas-to-methanol technology. Finally the methanol would be catalytically converted to gasoline. The generating unit would utilize gaseous fuel from the Initial gasification process.
A similar test ofan identical Alcoa unit planned for Adams Electric Cooperative was cancelled due to the poor performance of the Alcoa unit. Adams personnel are continuing to work with Allegheny to develop an alternative project utilizing a r significantly larger capacity unit of perhaps 40 KW.
Although success to date has proven minimal, I Allegheny will continue to pursue this potential PcNclcr Pc4oloer Vonnle Zobltne 0 e JT secnloy RocepNcnlst energy resource for its member/consumers.
Position Statement on Nuclear Power It Is the primary purpose of Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. to secure and deliver economic, wholesale power suIIIcient to meet our consistent with the membership members'eeds, corporation's stated objectives. We clarify our position on nuclear power with the following statements:
- 1. We believe this Nation must achieve energy developed it, fuel exists for continued long-independence to insure our economic future term economic operation of existing and and retain control of our foreign and domestic planned nuclear plants.
policies. We believe that this Nation's media has made 8.
We sincerely believe that a major portion of our "anti-nuclear" protest movements a major inflation can be attributed to the increase in news story regardless of merit and/or credibility OPEC oil prices, resulting in unemployment to the detriment of the public's understanding and high cost for those least able to afford and knowledge of this important energy them (e.g. elderly on fixed Income). option.
- 3. We believe America's economic future well being requires continual energy usage, with electric power playing an increasingly vital role. We further believe that all forms of domestically available energy resources should be pursued and utilized where found to be economic; and in particular, conservation and renewable energy resources must play an important role in America's energy future.
We believe that the nation's electric generating capacity should be as diverse as possible to assure continued production in the face of energy supply disruptions (e.g. oil embargoes). A substantial part of this diversity George Black Wendv Bralton Wnlng S peda Hat Pholofypeseler should be nuclear generation.
It is a generally-accepted principle that some of the Nation's energy usage now cfependent upon OPEC oil can be converted to electricity 9. We believewe havean obligationto Infoimall based on coal, nuclear, and renewable people, including elected officials, of the energy sources. scientific facts regarding nuclear powerwhich will eventually bring forth an accurate We do not favor the use of nuclear power over understanding of nuclear power by the citizens other means of generation for the sake of of Pennsylvania and this country.
nuclear power alone but from the realization that closing out of this option would 10. We emphasize that Allegheny Electric exacerbate our present weak energy position. Cooperative. Inc., ls not "pro-nuclear" or "anti-nucleal" but rather that we pledge our efforts We have no vested interest in the promotion of to energy incfepencfence and to reduce our nuclear power other than the fact that we balance of payment deficits while at the same sincerely believe that nuclear power has time doing our share In combatting one of this added diversity to this Nation's energy Nation's most serious problems, Inflation, by resources at a critical time in our history and, if supplying our consumer-owners with sufficient the breeder reactor concept is allowed to be low-cost, reliable electric power to meet their developed as other nations in the world have neecfs.
ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
212 LOCUST ST. P.O. 1266 ~ HARRISBURG. PENNSYLVANIA 17108 ~ PHONE 717 233-5704