ML19208D803

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Recommendation by Ny Dept of Environ Conservation to Place Application in Suspension Upon Condition of Util Agreement That Rejuvenated Application Will Be Considered newly-filed. If Condition Rejected,Case Should Be Dismissed
ML19208D803
Person / Time
Site: New Haven
Issue date: 07/25/1979
From: Engel D
NEW YORK, STATE OF
To: Madison S
NEW YORK, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 7909290578
Download: ML19208D803 (2)


Text

~

ac s o ....:sER noo. aunt.GL $0-S k U2 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233 ( )

OUM \j

.Dg ytmLIC DOCGgT R ROBER: r. FLACKE PggotX3.XFJde, D T T' D Commissioner

'J U

"" .1

, July 25, 1979 Ib0IMl

)h[UU[jQljJuub@. 9 ~

-O 4

' fp The Honorable Samuel R. Madison TE 'S

-b Secretary E g 3 0 1973 D New York State Board on Electric C j -4 Generation Siting & the Environment Department of Public Service '

6 er5f.N g -

Empire State Plaza \ c:

Agency Building #3 (N Albsny, New York 12223 Re: Case No. 80008 - New Haven Units 1 and 2 Ecology Action Motion to Dismiss

Dear Secretary Madison:

The Staff of this Department agrees in part with the Order issued by the Cccmission on July 10, 1979. However.

we believe that the reasoning employed can also lead to th:

conclusion that the proceeding should be placed in suspension pending Siting Board action in all other cases, rather than being dismissed. At such time, all parties will be in a far better position to assess the desirability of going forward.

Incieed, disposition elsewhere could result in the applicator's withdrawal, or substitution or addition of new partners.

In particular, the Board should be guided by the Cocmission's statement at Page 7 of the Order:

The proposed facilities are not the mly one.:

currently under consideration in Ar'- 'e VIII proceedings. Private electric compan ws currently have some 6000 megawatts of generating capacity under consideration in the Article VIII process--

megawatts that purportedly will serve statewide needs. And, more significantly, the members of the New York Power Pool, including LILGO and NYSE&G, believe that most of those megawatts of capacity should be built before the capacity proposed in this case. In addition, the Power Authority of the State of New York has plans to build 3000 megawatts of capacity to meet statewide ,

1 1055 041 7909290 F 7 & G

needs. In view of these facts, and the failure of any other electric company in the state to invest in the New Haven /Stuyvesant proj ect, applicants' implication that there will be a market for the capacity they propose, even though LILCO may have no use for it, is unsupportable. As applicants said in their prefiled Jamesport testimony, the appropriate ownership arrangements for the capacity proposed here may not be known for some time. In act, it is unlikely to be known until other pending Article VIII cases are decided.

In the~ event that a substantial portion of the referenced -

capacity is certified, the need for this facility will ,

evaporate. On the other hand, denial or withdrawal of a significant part will enhance this plant's viability.

Consequently, although we concur with the Co= mission that NYSE&G is premature in going forward at this time, we also believe that dismissal would be premature. Furthermore, we are convinced that the effort reflected in the application was of a quality and quantity which merits more serious consideration.

DEC Staff urges the Board to place the application in suspension upon condition that Applicant (on behalf of itself and any successors) agrees that it will be considered a newly-filed application for all purposes when it is rejuvenated.

If and only if that condition is refused, should the case be dismissed.

Sincerely ,-

cs.,

David A. Engel Senior Attorney cc: The Honorable Thomas R. Matias The Honorable Sidney A. Schwartz All Parties l

L

,q p r -

3 - o5 g jbi, 1055 042

.