ML17340B271
| ML17340B271 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/14/1981 |
| From: | Mcpherson J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17340B260 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8105290261 | |
| Download: ML17340B271 (12) | |
Text
/
4
~ elf~
SATION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS,,
r'>
~~
In the Matter of,
)
FLORIDA POWER 'ND LIGHT COMPANY ~
)
)
TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT, NOS.
3 6
4
)
Docket Nos.
50-250-SP 50-251-SP Proposed Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses TESTIMONY OF JOHN MCPHERSON Q.
Please give us your name, address and occupation for the record.
A.
My name is John McPherson, 9 N.W. 24th St., Gainesville, Florida 32603.
I am currently enrolled as a third year student at the University of Florida Law School in Gainesville.
I will graduate in June of 1981.
For the past year and a
half,I have been employed as a law clerk at Southern Legal
- Counsel, a public interest law firm in Gainesville.
I have been admitted to practice before the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) as a Class B practitioner.
Q.
Mr. McPherson, what is your background in the area of con-servation of electricity in Florida?
I have done considerable research on Florida law as it re-lates to the conservation of electricity.
This research was done in preparation for hearings recently held by the Florida PSC pursuant to the Public Utility Regulatory Procedures Act, 16 U.S.C.
$ 2601, et sece.
I represented Common Cause of Florida which had intervened on behalf of electric consumers at these PURPA hearings.
>>Os~spAI,
Also, I recently completed a research project on alternative capital investments.
This paper outlined the need for alternative capital investments and explained the legal framework within which such investments could be made in Florida.
The paper was submitted for credit in Florida Environmental
- Law, a course offered at the Univer-sity of Florida Law School.
Mr. McPherson, what is the purpose of your testimony.here today?
It is my understanding that the NRC, in formulating En-vironmental Impact Statements, must consider viable alter-natives even if such alternatives are not within the NRC's power to implement.
The question is therefore raised as to what the possibilities are under Florida law regarding the conservation of electricity.
The purpose of my testi-mony is simply to show that there are no impediments under Florida law to the implementa'tion by the PSC, or by the utilities themselves, of any of a wide range of conserva-tion measures, including capital investment by utilities in such measures.
Indeed Florida law encourages such conser-vation in the strongest of terms.
Has the Florida Legislature recently spoken on this issue?
Yes.
In 1980 the Legislature passed the Florida Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act (FEECA)
(5366.80 et
~se Fla. Stat.
(Supp.
1980)).
This Act begins with a strong statement concerning the Legislature's desire that electric
utilities implement conservation measures as quickly as I
possible.
Section 366.81 provides:
The Legislature finds that it is critical to utilize the most efficient and cost-effective energy con-servation systems in order to protect, the health, prosperity and general welfare of the state and its citizens.
Reduction in the growth rates of electric consumption and of weather sensitive peak demand are of particular importance....Since solutions to our energy problems are complex, the Legislature intends that the use of solar energy, renewable energy sources, highly efficient systems and load control systems shall be encouraged.
Under FEECA, what are the responsibilities of the Florida PSC?
Under this Act the PSC is required to adopt appropriate goals for increasing the efficiency of energy consumption.
The electric utilities are then required to formulate plans to meet such goals.
Has the PSC adopted goals pursuant to FEECA?
Yes.
Xn late 1980, the PSC adopted the following goal:
The first five year goal for the electric utility sector of the State of Florida is to develop and begin to implement programs on a utility by utility system basis by January 1,
1981, which will reduce the growth rates of end use weather sensitive peak kilowatt hour (KNH) consumption to an average of 72.25%
and 75%, respectively, of the average annual growth rate in the number of residential customers for the 1980-89 period.
(Xn re:
Ado tion of Rules 25-17.01 throu h 25-17.05, F.A.C., establishin statewide ener conservation pals as re uired b the Florida Ener Efficienc and Conser-Act, Florida Public Service Commission, Docket No.
800522-EG, Order No.
9634 (1980), at 25-17.02(1)).
Did the PSC suggest methods by which'tilities should try to achieve this goal' Yes.
They suggested several methods at Rule 25-17.01(2),
F.A.C.
Of particular relevance to the instant proceeding is the encouragement by the PSC that the utilities "aggres-sively integrate nontraditional sources of power generation into the various utility service areas to the extent cost effective..."
(Rule 25-17.01(2)(d), F.A.C.).
Q.
Does FEECA specifically grant utilities the authority to A.
offer loans to consumers as a form of alternative capital investment?
Yes, it does.
Section 366.82(3),
provides that the utility may include such loans in their conservation plans not-withstanding any other provision of the law.
The PSC in turn may pledge up to
$ 5,000,000 of the Florida Public Service Regulatory Trust Fund to guarantee such loans.
However, the PSC is prohibited under FEECA from requiring electric utilities to loan its funds for the purpose of purchasing or otherwise acquiring conservation measures or devices.
Q.
Has Florida Power and Light Company submitted a conserva-tion plan to the PSC for approval?
A.
Q.
Yes.
The first plan it submitted was rejected by the Com-mission.
A revised plan was then submitted.
Does that plan include any alternative capital investment
S 8
I
components?
Yes.
Florida Power 6 Light chose the rebate method for in-vesting capital in conservation measures.
Under its plan FPL will be offering rebates to consumers who take such conservation measures as purchasing solar water-heating
- systems, adding reflective window film, and insulating ceilings.
Has this plan been approved by the PSC?
Yes.
This approval indicates the PSC's support for alternative capital'nvestment strategies.
Did FPL take advantage of FEECA provisions allowing them to make loans to customers for the purcha'se of energy conser-vation measures or devices?
No, not in its revised plan.
Since such loans have been an effective and profitable alternative capital investment as used in other jurisdictions., it is probable that FPL should, in the future, consider such loans as an alternative to new power plant construction and repair.
What other aspects of Florida law are relevent to the instant, proceeding?
The Supreme Court of Florida has explicitly stated that the PSC has the power to consider conservation of energy in setting rates to be charged by electric utilities.
- See, International Minerals and Chemical Cor oration v Na o, 336 So.2d 548 (Fla.
1976).
Thus the PSC could design rate
(
structures which encourage the conservation of electricity thus forestalling the need for new generation capacity and costly repairs to existing facilities.
Does that conclude your testimony, Mr. McPherson?
Yes it does.
I e