ML18088A869
| ML18088A869 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1976 |
| From: | Luff H Orlando Utilities Commission |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML18088A869 (41) | |
Text
AFFIDAVIT OF HARRY C. LUFF, SR.
RE:
FLORIDA POWER Ez LIGHT COMPANY NUCLEAR UNITS NRC DOCKET NO P-636-"A and NRC DOCKET NO. 50-389-A BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION of the UNITED STATES April 14, 1976"
rj t
t l
l
STATE OF FLORIDA:
COUNTY OF ORANGE:
AFFIDAVIT BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared HARRY C.
LUFF, JR., to me known and known to me to be the person named herein, who being first duly sworn deposes and says as follows:
My name is Harry C. Luff, Jr.,
and my residence is 950 Terrace Boulevard, Orlando, Florida.
I am Assistant General Manager of Orlando Utilities Commission, a position which I have held since 1967.
I have been employed by the Commission since 1946 and have served in Operations, as Plant Mechanical Engineer, Assistant Superintendent of Power, Superintendent of Power, Manager of Electric Operations, and Assistant General Manager.
I hold a Bachelor of Science degree from Brown University, majoring in mechanical engineering, and am a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Res onsibilities:
My responsibilities with the Commission include serve.ng in the absence of the General
- Manager, long-range facility and financial planning, attending power industry meetings as official representative of the Orlando Utilities Commission, and participating on a number of industry committees, primarily in the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group (FCG).
I have been involved in meetings and other policy level discussions from the inception of FCG.
I served as
.President of Florida Municipal Utilities Association in 1972.
I am personally acquainted with those persons who manage operations of electric utilities of the State of Florida, including the Florida Power and Light Company, having been involved with them in many committee assignments of the FCG.
In the FCG I have served on the Steering Committee, which presently is designated as the Technical Advisory Group, which included personnel of Florida Power and Light, and whose purpose was generally to direct the functions of the Operating and Planning Committees of FCG.
I was involved in the early development and formation of the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group and served as meeting Ch'airman of the Formation Committee on several occasions in 1972.
The Orlando Utilities Commission desires the oppor-tunity to have access to nuclear generation because various engineering studies performed by the Commission's consulting engineers, Black and Veatch, have shown nuclear capacity to be the lowest cost alternative, generation source available.
These
studies have also shown that the Commission is unable to finance an investment in nuclear capacity on an independent basis because of the Commission's size and financial capability.
Based upon my total knowledge and the information available to me with the Orlando Utilities Commission, it is my belief that, unless the Orlando Utilities Commission has the opportunity to obtain nuclear power resources, its competitive situation will be seriously impaired.
Apart from any other factors, a joint venture would be necessary for Orlando to participate in nuclear capacity.
The nuclear capacity available to the Commission in the near future is the 13-megawatt share that it was able to purchase'rom Florida Power Corporation's Crystal River Unit 53.
This provides an example of cooperative effort at joint develop-ment in Florida.
However, this 13 megawatts amounts to only 1.8 percent of the Commission's presently insta'lied generating capacity.
It is significant that this 13 megawatts will reduce costs to Orlando system rate payers by approximately
$ 900,000 annually.
I know of no other presently planned nuclear genera-tion in Florida other than that, apart from Crystal River 03 and
'plants being planned by Florida Power and Light Company.
Should the Orlando Utilities Commission be excluded from nuclear capacity apart from its 13-megawatt Crystal River share, in my opinion it would seriously impair the available opportunities to the Commission.
Moreover, the Orlando Utilities Commission has been faced with a virtual cessation of natural gas.deliveries, which in 1972 was the source of approximately 65 percent of our annual fuel requirement.
Coal is not available to us in the short near-term future.
Since Orlando is located inland and since peninsu-lar Florida and the adjacent Southeast does not have significant coal resources, this generating source has limited access at.
reasonable costs.
Further, it presents problems of conversion of existing plant and environmental constraints.
The Orlando Utilities Commission does not have access to hydroelectric generation.
Fuel oil is presently available, but in recent years its costs have risen more than threefold.
In this situation, there is a present impairment of Orlando Utilities'bilityto compete with Florida Power and Light, which has both nuclear and gas available for much of its generation.
As an official with the Orlando Utilities Commission and as one familiar with municipal generation throughout Florida, I am concerned that such competitive conditions can erode support
for. municipal electric systems, thereby reducing competition for wholesale electric power services in Florida.
In my opinion, not.only would this be unfortunate from the standpoint of ulti-mate consumers of electricity, but as an immediate practical
- matter, assuming the stability of the Orlando system, if other systems go out of business or if their financial health is impaired, it limits the sources and outlets available to Oilando for bulk power sales, purchases and exchanges.
Early engineering studies by Black and Veatch in the late '60s indicated the advantage of coordination with other utilities enabling installation of larger generating units and sales of excess generating capacity during the early years of operation of these larger units.
Engineering recommendations advised the Commission to contact other utility companies, including Florida Power and Light, to determine the feasibility of coordinated activities.
Contacts, with Florida Power and Light representatives in 1969 revealed no interest in this type of coordination on the part of Florida Power and Light Company.
Spokesmen for Florida Power and Light stated that they had no interest in this type of coordination because of the very small amount, of capacity that would normally be made available from the size unit the Commission would install, considering the very
.high growth rate of Florida Power and Light.
The amount of excess capacity that Orlando Utilities Commission could offer would only cover several months'rowth in the Florida Power and Light system, and would be impractical oyer an extended period.
Florida Power and Light suggested that this type of coordination would be more practical for Orlando Utilities with other smaller systems.
In September 1972, Mr. Ernest L. Bivans, presently Vice President of Florida Power and Light, contacted Mr. Irving Reedy of Orlando Utilities and Mr. J.
K. Wiley of Jacksonville Electric Authority at a meeting of the Florida Operating Committee and indicated interest in joint discussions for develop-ment of coordinating generating capacity.
Mr. Irving Reedy, Director of Power Transmission for Orlando Utilities, advised me of these contacts
- and, as a result, a meeting between Mr. Marshall McDonald,'President and Chief Executive Officer of Florida Power and Light Company, Mr. Curt Stanton, General Manager of Orlando Utilities Commission, and myself was arranged in October 1972.
At this meeting representatives of Orlando Utilities Commission indi-cated interest. in holding joint discussions for joint development of large nuclear and fossil generation projects.
Mr. Marshall McDonald responded favorably by suggesting that the engineering staff representatives of Orlando Utilities Commission and Florida Power and Light hold meetings to discuss possible alternative generation projects.
Mr. Curt Stanton suggested that Jacksonville Electric Authority had also indicated interest in participating
in.such meetings.
At this suggestion, Mr. Marshall McDonald called. Mr. Louis Winnard, then Managing Director of the Jacksonville Electric Authority, to inform him of the meeting in progress and to inquire as to Jacksonville Electric Authority's possible interest in participating in talks at the staff level.
Mr. Winnard responded favorably, indicating that Jacksonville Electric Authority would have a representative attend the scheduled talks.
This meeting led to later meetings, the first of which was held'n December 1972, in which the staff partici-pants from Orlando Utilities Commission, Florida Power and Light and JacksonvilleElectric Authority agreed to investigate other joint generation projects in the United States in an effort, to determine what would be the best form of agreement, to be used for a joint generation project.
The efforts of this joint study group were announced by Mr. E. L. Bivans at a meeting of the Florida Operating Committee in December 1972.
The Coordinating Generation Study Committee, as this group was later named, met again in February 1973 to discuss assignments of the individual Committee members.
Florida Power and Light indicated. that their initial reaction from comments made by Reid and Priest, Florida Power and Light attorneys, was that the best arrangement for a joint venture would most likely be under the tenancy in common arrangement with an undivided interest.
Mx. M. F. Hebb, of the
'lorida Power Corporation, participated for the first, time in the February 1973 meeting as a result, of the announcements made at the Florida Operating Committee meeting inviting all interested parties to participate in these discussions.
During the course of discussions held at. these meetings, Mr. E. L. Bivans indicated that capacity from the St. Lucie IX nuclear project was needed by Florida Power and Light for their system and was not available for sale to other utilities.
How-
- ever, he assured the other participants at the meetings of Florida Power and Light's willingness to share future generating capacity, both nuclear and non-nucleax.
These meetings culminated in an exchange of correspon-dence initiated. by Florida Power and Light on May 1, 1973 as to the interest of Orlando Utilities Commission, Florida Power Corporation and Jacksonville Electric Authority in purchasing capacity from generating units in thxee alternate expansion plans in the 1979-1982 period.
Orlando Utilities Commission, Jacksonville Electric Authority and Florida Power. Corporation all responded to the May 1, 1973 inquiry from Florida Power and Light, indicating the amount of desired capacity.
No formal response was ever received from Florida Powex'nd, Light to the letters indicating interest in the alternate plans that had been proposed by Florida Power and Light in May 1973.
Uerbal inquiries in late 1973 as to the Florida Power and r
Light position on the Orlando Utilities Commission response were unsuccessful in obtaining any commitment.
The stated reasoning for Florida Power and Light's lack of response was the constitu-tional prohibition against joint ownership by municipal and investor owned systems in Florida.
In late 1970, Jacksonville Electric Authority con-tacted Orlando Utilities Commission indicating an interest in purchasing excess capacity from the Orlando Utilities Commission's system.
Mr. J.
K. Wiley, of Jacksonville Electric Authority, made several contacts with Mr. Harry Page, Florida Power and Light Company, to determine if an agreement could be made for Florida Power and Light to wheel energy from the Orlando Utilities Commission's system to Jacksonville Electric Authority.
Orlando Utilities Commission had excess capacity and Jacksonville-Electric Authority was capacity deficient.
The question of a bilateral agreement between Jacksonville Electric Authority and Orlando Utilities Commission for the contract changes for the capacity and energy was discussed with Mr. Page, who stated that this was unacceptable to Florida Power and Light, but that per-haps a multilateral agreement might be arranged.
Mr. Wiley and Mr. Page discussed this possibility in detail and I was informed by Mr. Wiley that there appeared to be a real possibility for a
~ successful culmination of such a multilateral agreement, which would involve a purchase of capacity from Orlando Utilities Commission by Florida Power and Light and a resale of such capacity to Jacksonville Electric Authority.
I was told by Mr. Wiley at. a later date that Florida Power and Light had declined to enter into any direct arrangement between Orlando Utilities Commission and Jacksonville Electric Authority.
Mr.
Wiley said that because of this position taken by Florida Power and Light, the purchase from Orlando Utilities Commission by Jacksonville Electric Authority would not be possible, and the matter was not pursued further.
More recently, Florida Power and Light has taken the position through its representatives at FCG that Orlando Utilities Commission and. other smaller municipal and cooperative systems should not have a legal ownership in the proposed 500 KV transmission system that would strengthen interconnections among Florida utilities and with the Southern
- Company, although they apparently are not adverse to other systems participating in the cost of construction on a limited basis.
Again, through its representatives to FCG and else-where, Florida Power and Light representatives have stated that they are unwilling to participate in a.statewide power pool and have not, been willing to enter into coordinated development, as has been discussed above.
Ernest Bivans had stated early in the discussions for formation of a power pool in Florida that
Florida Power and Light did not favor a fully coordinated power pool, but a more limited concept which reflected in essence what the utilities in Florida were presently doing under exist-ing agreements.
He further stated that the concept of joint development on large generation projects and the exchange of economy energy would provide the equivalent benefits to that of a fully coordinated pool, but with the flexibilityof present contract arrangements.
This position, which had been indicated in May of 1975, was completely altered in October 1975 by Mr. Bivans in a meeting of the FCG Technical Advisory Group Pooling Task Force in which Mr. Bivans indicated 'a complete unwillingness on the part of Florida Power and Light to partici-pate in any pooling arrangement in Florida.
The above activities are in the context that the State Public Service Commission has requested the FCG to make studies to determine the benefits of a statewide power pool.
This is illustrated by the attached directives from the Florida Public Service Commission that have been given to FCG.
Florida Power and Light, through its legislative repre-sentatives, opposed a proposed local law submitted by the Orlando Utilities Commission that would have allowed the rights of eminent, domain outside Orange County.
Such law would have allowed Orlando to build off system generation, thereby avoiding environmental and other problems associated with building new generation in Orange County.
Florida Power and Light opposed implementing legisla-tion of the constitutional amendment passed. in 1974, which legislation would have allowed joint financing by municipalities through use of a municipal power authority for participation in joint venture with cooperative and investor owned utilities.
Within the last nine months, Florida Power and Light has bought economy energy from the Orlando Utilities Commission.
Florida Power and Light has not done so in the past although the Utilities Commission made known its availability.
Although Florida Power Corporation has purchased sub-stantial quantities of firm power from Orlando Utilities Commission, Florida Power and Light has never done so.
In my discussions with Florida Power and Light, over the course of time, Florida Power and Light has indicated that one of their major concerns in entering into cooperative arrangements with municipally owned utilities is that such arrangements might reduce power costs for municipal utilities and thereby strengthen.
their competitive position as compared with Florida Power and Light Company.
Considering the relative sizes and territorial restrictions binding the municipal systems in question, it is my opinion that the fear of competition expressed by Florida Power and Light is unfounded; STATE OF FLORIDA)
SS.
COUNTY OF ORANGE)
..(". Cln g)
Harry C. Luff, Jr. j Sworn to and subscribed to before me this 13th day of April, A. D., 1976.
(SEAL)
No ry Public Rotary PrLlic, State of Fforida at Large My Coreerissioo Fxres fofy 22, 197&
losdea ay hearken fa~ a cwwoy co.
SKRVI CE t:OMMISSI ON COhlht1$ $lONtRIt OlLLBEVlS. CHAlRh)AH WILLlhhtT. MhYO
'NRS. PAULAF. HAWKlHS May lg 1975 700 SOUTH AOAMS STAEET TALLAHASSEE3230i TELEPHONE 904&I0.1001 Mr. H. L. Culbreath
'irman Florida Electric Pcaar Coordinates@
Group 402 Reo Street Suite 103 Tampa, Florida 33609
Dear Mr. Culbreath:
Zegislatian in recent-. years has placed a responsibility upon this Ccmnission which requires us to concern ourselves not only with the service characteristics of individual electric utilities, but also with the characteristics of the State as a whole.
X quote fram 366.04(3), F.S. effective July 1, 1974:
"%he Ccamissian shall further have jurisdicticn aver the planning, developnant and maintenance of a coordinated electric power grid throughout
'lorida,"
0 For the 1980-2000 time franc and pursuant to the FlorMa Electric Power Plant Siting Act, ttJ Camussion's Engineering Staff intends to evaluate the need for additional power plants on the basis of a
'ully coordinated peninsula wide power pool.
Pranpted by financial consideratians, Florida Power Corporation is saving toward joint ownership of its power plants which is but ane feature of power pool operation.
We note that the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group (FCG) with a mernh~~hip that provides for aver 90't of the power produced in Florida, has within its ranks, the wide spectrum of expertise necessary to formulate power pooling concepts for peninsula Florida.
I am therefore requesting that by virtue of your position as Chairman of the FCG, you bring before your Executive Carmittee, the considera-tion of the task of preparing canparative generating unit e3gxmsion
MR. H..L. CULQBPA'1H May 1, 1975 Pa(Je 2
plans for ~~insula I"lorida as a whole witlmut regard to individual company territory and with particular emphasis on the role of nuclear power.
In conjunction with these economic studies, we solicit your views on formal power pool operation as well as identi-fication of any administrative, financial and legal problem areas.
>N appreciate your cooperation and look forward to your response.
Very truly yours,'HE COND SSIONERS
,r'i'.-r.
WXL'IZAMH. BEVIS I", FJAMQiNS lSH/JS/cd
N r
I RlllA
. ~.'e PUBLIC SKHVI CK
'COMMISSION I'III4I418lIIONKILL WllLJAMT. MAYO,CIIAIKMAN lllLI.BFVI8 MIN. PALII*V. HlLWKINK 4
?00 SOUTH AOAI4S STIIEET TALLAHASSEE32304 TELEPHONE 904 48$. I00I February 24, 1976 TO:
ALL PARTIES OF RECORD RE:
DOCKET NO. 760006-CI - GENERAL INVESTIGATION TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEMS BED%EN THE GRID BILL, FLORIDA ELECI'RIC P01%R PLANI'ITE ACT, AND COL&lISSION RATEMAKING.
As provided for in Order Number 7080, there will be an initial informal workshop in this Docket on March 9, 1976, presided over by Dr. Jay B. Kennedy, Executive Director.
This workshop will commence at 9:00 a.m. in Room 21, House Office Building, rather than in the Commission's offices as set forth in the Order.
The primary purpose of this workshop will be to discuss procedure and to give consideration to the need for subsequent workshops in this Docket.
Inherent in the workshop format is the need for a working group of reasonable size.
Accordingly, the parties in this Docket should begin to determine among themselves appropriate individuals to form a working group, bearing in mind the fact that the need for particular individuals may vary as the topic of a particular workshop varies.
As a starting point for discussion, and to facilitate selection of appropriate individuals, attached are specific study topics suggested by the Commission's Engineering staff, and related matter.
Comment on these suggested topics is invited at the workshop, and a further time will be provided for written comment or suggested changes.
As stated, the primary.purpose of the March 9 workshop is to develop procedures for use in this Docket.
e i11ILLIAMB. DEMILLY COIKHSSION CLERK ttachments
( S E A L )
PUBLIC SERVICE COYi4ISSION SUGGES3'l'UDY CATEGORIES DOCKET NO. 760006-CI The following is a study outline suggested by the Commission's Engineering Department for this docket.
The proposed study is divided into three major areas of investigation with some other related factors:
l.
Full Into rated Generation ansion Three generation expansion studies are envisioned:
one for peninsula Florida as a whole and one each for a western and eastern subregion as pictured in the attached map.
The area Nest of the Appa3achicola River is excl>>ded from generation expansion studies because that area is fully integrated into the Southern Company power pool, and because that area is not eH'ectively intertied with the penins>>3a.
Each expansion p3an will be compared to a base1ine consisting of'he <<urrent3y p3ann(d
<>enerating >>nit additions of e hach >>tility.
The generation oxp; >>sion p3ans Jor each region will optimize a31 project(d costs re3ated to generation with and without the constraint of nuc3car and fossil fue3 diversification, both as to avai3abi3ity and rates charged to cons>>mcrs.
Th(. r(;g)ona3 g('.n(.'ration expansion studi( s s'no>>1(l ref 3ecl 3oad mo(3cls nnl>", detai fed transmission 3ine an<3 centra]i ed d)spatch st>>dios sho>>]d be m;>de on1y af ter a gone'.ration c.ip:<>>sion plan is se3(cted.
PSC SUGGESI'ED STUDY PAGE Tl'6 Z.
Centralized Co uter Dis atch for Current Generation/
Transmission Line E ansion Plans This study is to examine the economic feasibility of a peninsula wide central dispatch capability which select's the most efficient generation mix for any given load pattern.
,Data for this study will be obtained from the presently planned generation and transmission line configuration.
3.
Contin enc Plans This area of study is to develop contingency programs to be implemented pursuant to Chapter 75-256, Laws of Florida, if a fuel shortage emergency is declared by order of the governor.
Detailed transmission line, centralized dispatching, and other studies should be made only if fully integrated generation expansion practices are found to provide benefits beyond that already derived from the existing informal arrangements between electric utilities.
As a consequence of the studies outlined above inherent conflicts, if any, among the underlying statutes should become apparent, and appropriate remedial legislation can then be suggested.
0
PSC SUO<:HS'l'HD STUDY CAT)1<A)RIES - D')CK).T.)lO. 760006-CI
+ fa
<d t< Cd ic id A <4X Cd 0 BO Fe Cd
<<) <<t Cd &
4< <i)
AA O
A fo Cd Pi 4 0 <0
<4 M cd ia
<4 <a
<4 0M
<0 MO CdA 12 O)
GBNEtthTION EXPANSION 0 i H, YVEL i CAPIThl. COST ESTI)thTHS
. GENERATION FINANCIAL FACTORS GEtlHRATION EXPANSION STUDY BFGIONS (I)
PENINSUlih RELIABIL1TY CRITERIA UNIT DATA (llEAT )<ATE)
F.O.A.
ECT.
I I
I (2)
WBSTPBN PENINSULA LOAD NODBL I
- PENINSULA FLORIDA EASTERN PEN IHSUlih WESTERN PENINSUl.h OPTIHIZI',D FOR NIHINUN GENERATION COSTS PENINSULA
+/~
I
~ PENINSULA
'LORIDA I
+ EASTERN PENINSULA
'WeSTERN PEN INSUlih RODUCTIOH 6 Chl'ITA OSTING OF INDIVIDUAI PLANS OH Slate t)ARIS AS JOINT RXPANSION PLANS OPTINIZBD FOR HININUN I
COSTS SUUJHCT TO Ttte CONSTRAINT OF NUCLEAR AND FOSSIL DIVERSIFICATION i
02 DL'VHLOP COtl'l'1NGHNCY PLANt'ENINSULA WIDE DISPATCII l OA CUARL'NT TAANSNISSIO G).NH)CAL FXPAHSION PLANS FINAL AHPOAT
('RllPABAT)OiV P
Pl<HSif;HTATIOti TO S.C.
PUR APPBOVAI IF PUI>LY INTFBATKI)
I.'.'" '.
POOLINr.,
ttCO~<ott trht ).Y Jt)STIFW))LH:
Tttt:V PERI'OIU1 Tl<ANSNiISSlnli IiINBi Cl'NTBALlZHU I
~
~:
~
D1SPATCtl i AND OTlltlB STllnIPS
- LOAD )lOnel OMliY Detail c< nl:ralizcd dispatch studios cxclu<1c<l at'this tbnc <blc tn absrnc<
of powor pool tranrmission li>>o <tcta) ls
l I
4 II II I II II P V II C II C S E II Y I C E C V M M I S S I 0 II I3 )MMIWKINK104.
WllJAAMT. hIAY(LI'IIAIIIhI*N IllI.I. IIK VIS hlllELI'AlllAV, llhWKINK 200 SOU IH AOAMS STREE I fALLAHASSEE32304 1ELEPHONE 904.488 100 I March 16, 1976 TO:
ALL PARTIES OF RECORD RE:
DOCKET NO. 760006-CI
- GENERAL INVESl'IGATION TO RFSOLVE TfK PROBLEMS BET1KEN THE GRID BILL, FLORIDA ELECTRIC P01%R PLANT SITE ACT, AND C(MIISSION RATEMAKING.
Pursuant to Commission Order No. 7080, an informal workshop was held March 9, 19?6, in the above styled docket in Tallahassee.
At the workshop, the three phase study outline suggested by the Commission staff and previously mailed to all parties was presented and discussed.
Phase I consists of generation expansion planning studies; Phase II consists of a study to determine the feasibility and desirability of centralized dispatch; and Phase III consists of contingency planning for fuel related emergencies.
Since Phase II, and to some extent Phase III, seem to follow sequentially and to build on the data generated by Phase I, it was decided to defer Phase II and Phase III at this time, especia11y since the same resources in people and equipment would be required for both Phase I and Phase II.
A specific proposal to accomplish the Phase I study was presented by several representatives of the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc., hereafter FCG, an association formed by the investor-owned, municipal and rural electric utilities which account, for virtually all the generating capacity in Florida.
FCG has both operating and planning functions.
The FCG proposal, consisting of a detailed study requiring about 58 weeks, was discussed.
The study is divided into parts, consisting of:
development of a composite data base; development of unsited individual system and peninsula system plans; development of the peninsula sited generation plans; development of the final report.
Copies of the FCG proposal were distributed to all parties at the workshop; additional copies are available on request to FCG or the Commission Clerk.
The FCG proposal was deemed a satisfactory approach to the Phase I study requirements.
Gulf Power Company, serving that area generally west of the Apalachicola River, will interface with the Phase I study, but will not be a participant therein, because Gulf is primarily electrically intertied with, and is a part of, the Southern Company system.
IXX;Kl:I'O. 76000(')-(;l MAR(:II 16, 1976 PA('L'1'4'0 I:ollowing an initial organizational period, the Phase I study will begin May 1, 1976, and will be conducted primarily by the FCG System Planning Committee, with review by certain Commission staff members.
Interim reports will be mailed to parties of record and discussed at subsequent workshops.
The twelve weeks required for the first part of the Phase I study will end July 16,
- 1976, and the workshop for that part is now shceduled for July 23, 1976.
In the event that workshop is held in Tallahassee, it will begin at 11:00 a.m. to allow parties to fly in that morning and leave the same afternoon.
Subsequent workshops will be shceduled as appropriate, and all parties will be afforded an opportunity to participate therein.
A list of the parties of record is attached; persons present at the March 9 workshop are indicated by an asterisk.
Attachments (SEAL)
and energy, for intermediate capacity and energy, or for base load capacity and energy and that the cost to provide these three types are not identical.
The design of a single rate that would assure recovery of actual costs in-cluding a fair'return is indeed one of the most complex rate design problems of our time.
Some companies have proposed and have imposeB separate rates for peaking, intermediate and base load service.
There is nothing inherently wrong with th's three-tier pricing so long as the rates do truly reflect thc cost of service and the application of all three of thc separate rate schedules as applied to the wholesale customers'otal load cuxv'e willnot result in costs higher than the overall cost to provide peaking, intermediate and base load service.
'The partial requirements customer is necessarily interconnected with the wholesale supplier as, for that matter, is the all requirements customer.
The paxtial requirements
- customer, however, because hc has scH'-owned generation, is in need, and indeed deserves and should insist on, agrcemcnts relating to interchange of power with respect to his own generation.
These agreezncnts need to cover emergency, scheduled main-
- tcnancc, and economy energy exchanges on bases similar to those of the intcrconncctcd self-generating systems.
The 1974 settlement agxeement in the Florida Power Corporation FPC Docket E-7679 assures to the twelve systems that presently purchase all of their rcquircmcnts from Floxida Power that they can indeed become partial requirements customers of that company with
~
~
~ c4 cs o,
~
~
SBQRE Tl6! FLORIELK In ret Ccncral investigation to resolve thc problcns between thc Grid Bill, Florida Lilcctric Passer Plane Site Act, and Ccnrs-ission ratcaraking.
PUBLIC SERVICE CRNISSIO'I
)
r
)
DOCKET N. 760006-CI
)
ORDER hO.
7080 Thc follobing Caanissioncrs participated "in the disposition of Q 'his mttcrs WILLIAMT.
YbAYO, Chairman lGLLIA'IlH.
SEMIS'AULA F. HINVIYS
.-= aY TllE CallISSIOis OROSR INSTITUTING lht'EST [GITIGN >Utf Rfl'~7~uarii. I'-";a>'>au l>s:!L>rt 3
I This proceeding is initiated on thc Con-..ission's or.n motion pursuant to Section 120.6Z, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of in-vestigating 'implementatioh problems arising from tlic intcracrion be-ticcen Clraptcr 74-195 and 73-33, Law of Floricia, popularly L.ore as the Grid Bill and thc Poi'cr Plant Siting Act, and thc Cc:snission's general rcspo>>sibilitics under Chapter 366, F'Iorida Statute.
Surisdiction is vested in thc Cormission by Ch..ptcrs 73-33 and 74-196, Laws of Florida and Chapter 366, Florida Statutes.
It is our intention to undertake.a thorough and co.,irchcnsive investigation of this rnatter.
This includes, wrung other:hinrs, analysis oE thc inrplications oC thc Plant Site Act on tlic Csrid Bi11.
service characteristics oE thc state as a i'hole; presciit as:
zutur transmission intertie nccds and plans; prese:it and future needs ard plans with rcspcct to idieclinP a>>d rclatcd problems; tlic ccsrscaucnces oC future uncertainties in availability a>>d. price of fuels ana of plant; fuel emergency contingency plans; and related matters, in-cluding economic usicerta'nties.
i"itis respect to sucli issues, thc Ccrrsnission i'illascertain
<<hat action, if any,. needs to bc undcr-takcn pars>>:int to thc forcmcntiorcd statutes, and wiiat 'revisions, if any, shoulcl bc r.iadc ro those statutes.
Bccaiisc of thc i>>enbcr and complexity oE thc issues Involved, thc Co...nission wil) corduct this will bc an informal beskshop for isitcrcstcd Parties ana Csx:::.cession staff as hcrcaftcr ard rcd to fur>bar dcfiaa lssu s, folio
.! b>
submission of statcrants thcrcon l>y thc PartieS.
Th>
s:,:a >:c:on ma bc foll>:.. I b o >'ort htp m~rchenri>>r conform>;
to dis-uss s
a cr:."ntc c>>d rosin> ~.c.
a>id c:tool>.fi practical it:uts to tla s apc of this investigation.
33ic inquest fron thc i>>fns-.il stages of t!sis invcstigatin>> cJ>>
siren bi sr.rrriierriil l>>rcl a forsi'~l siri cc "tlir~ m of thc natter.
Based on tlic foiegoisig, it is thcrcEore, ORDL'lJ:Il by thc lilorida Public Service Concnissinn tli:it a for.nal agency i>>vcstigatio>> is licrcby isritiatcd o>> tlic niatter of ir,ilcmcntation problesns arisi>>g fran tire i>>tc ractio>> of tlic GriJ Qnll, tlic liight Site Act and rhc Cof:."nissioss's gencrisl responsibilities under Clryztcr 3csb, Florida Statutes.
It is furtlichr utilitics. scbcit infonnn>on rema>'I>>>
la I costs. d > Io ts..
Rrc>nh rates aad certain other co. t latif'ril ~
nr.I
>Op>crsad or a ratatioss that a utility Jnes>>ot liosscss s<<eli s>>fosrratso>>
where appropriate, together witli an cx)ila>>atioii of resJerlyssrg a
sriniIPtiOSS, no later tlian Febnessy 6;
1976, on Eosriis sittaehcd hereto.
It ss Tur cr c
~ I
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
<<\\ ~
~
~
~
~
~
1 A %4%~
~
~
IXXKLTQ). 760006-CI
'OROER NO.
7000 PAGE Tl
~
t <<$ ~,g 't
~
$ ~ << ~t'tl t1
<< ~
Pt
~ <<t ~
'<<<< ~ ~ <<t>l ~ gt
~ ~
g ~
~ ~
ORDERED that all electric utilitics regulated by thc Cocctission, including those t.-.unicipal systems and rural electric coopcrativcs aver which thc Ccr.:aission has jurisdiction for thc purposes scr.
forth in Chapter 74-196, Laws of Florida, and thc Florida Electric Peer Coodinating Group, lnc<<t as well as other intcrcstcd p rscns arc urged to attend an inforrtal confcrencc with thc Cere>issiott staff Tallahasscc.
An agcttda, therefore,i'ill bc issued in accordance with the requirctr<<cnts of thc Administrative Procedure Act.
By ORDLtR of Chaizrtan N!LLIA~IT. KRYO, Co.;missioner NILLINI H." BEVIS and Cc...issicncr PAULA'F. IKiEI."S, as and cctistituting thc Florida Public Service Commission, this 15th day of January, 1976.
.gillian B. DeHi11.y COICIISSIOif CLEK(
(SEAL7 t
'I
<<I t ~
~ <<
~ t
Porm 1 UTILIY FORECAST OF CAPACITY, DEMAND, AND SCHEDUL D MAINTENANCE AT TIME OP SUMMER PEAcC a/
YEAR Total Installed Capacity MN Pirm Capacity Import Total Available Capacity K'7 Peak Demand MnV Margin Before Maint.
l1W
% of PK.
Sched.
jv~aint MN Marg'n A ter Maint I!N
-"; o" PK.
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 197S 1979 19SO lool 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986-1987 1988 1989 1990 2000 a).
Capacity additions and changes must be made by M~a31 to be considered in effect at the tin:e of the Summer. peak.
All values are Summer Ãet NW.
b)
Actual 1966 throu'"0 1975
e
Form 2
Page lo 2
UTILITY HISTORY AND FORECAST OF ENERGY USE RURAL 6 RESIDENTIAL COMM"RCIAL INDUSTRIAL YEiXR 1966 i 007 1'o8 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
'74 1975 1976 1977 197S 1979 9n0 1981 1982
'S4 19S5 1986 19S7 19SS 1989 19cC 2000 GWH NO.
OF CUSTOMERS AVERAGE KWH CONSUMPTION PER CUSTOMER GWH AV'.RAGE" NO.
OF CUSTOMERS GWH AUEBAGE".
NO.
OF CUSTOMERS
- Use.Average of en'-of-mor.ih.customers "or the calendar year-hj Ac ual 1'>66 through 1975
0.%
UTILITY EIXSTORY AND FORECAST OF ENERGY USE Form 2
Pago 2
2 Y=AR 1965 1967
> 968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1 85 1986
'987 19SS 1989 1990 2000 STREET HIGH&JAY LIGHT1NG GWH OTHER SALES TO ULTXi~IATE CON SUP.'ERS GNH TOTAL SALES 0
UL IRATE CONSU~'GERS GKi SALES FOR RESALE GWH UTILITY USE LOSSES GWH NET ENERGY FOR LOAD Gl'JH
O.e
UTXLXTY Form 3
PLANNED AND PROSPECTIVE GENERATXNG FACILITY ADDXTXONS AND CHANGES THROUGH 2000 CONST'OM'L ZN-GEN MAX NET CAPABlLITY UNXT LOCATION FUEL START SERVICE NAMEPLATE SUMMER NXNTER PLANT NAME NO.
(XF KNOWN)
TYPE PRY ALT MO/YR MO/YR+
KN MW MN
~This column is to be u'sed also for dates of retirements and changes.
UTILITY FORECAST OF PLANT CAPITAL INVESTXMENT ($/KN)
YEAR 1975 1976.
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 2000 NUCLEAR OXL STEAM COAL STEAM w/
r DESULFURXZATION COAL STEAM w/o DESUL 'URIZATXON COMBUSTION.
TURBINE COMBXNE CYCLE
-Indicate size of unit
h l.
Y
For 5
UT"-'LXTY FORECAST OF FUEL COSTS
""'iR 1975 1976 1977
'78 3 979 1~82 1983 198-"
1985 i.~86 1987 1988 1989 1990 2000 NUCLEAR C/MBTU COAL HIGH SULFUR LGN SULFUR S
TON MBTU TON MBTU O<
OIL I6 SULFUR OlL N2 BBL C MBTU CONTBNT
$ BBL C/iXBT Assumed Heat Content:
.Q6 Oil =
52 Oil =
Coal =
v e 14 y"I
Poxm 6
UTILITY OTHER UNIT DATA LEVELlZED CARRYING CHARGE RATE FULL LOAD HEAT RATE (BTU/KNH)
(EXCLUDING FUEL)
OS M
COST (MILLS/KWH)
MW W clear MW Coal w/o d eau lu fur izat'n MW with desul-furization NH Oil MW Combined Cycle MW Combustion Turbine (a) incLicate size