ML19224B814

Ny Dept of Public Svc Response to Ecology Action of Oswego Interlocutory Appeal of Denial of Motion for Dismissal of Application.Recommends Denial of Appeal

ML19224B814
Person / Time
Site:	New Haven
Issue date:	05/07/1979
From:	Grey R NEW YORK, STATE OF
To:
Shared Package
ML19224B813	List: ML19224B812 ML19224B814
References
NUDOCS 7906260511
Download: ML19224B814 (2)

Text

-- - . _ _ - . -- -

, \ ' '-.?,--

Is ~k STATE OF NEW YCRK PUBLIC SERVICE CCMMISSION

)

q'sw og7 y. .

\ag L3 Mav 7, 1979 L- \ 's #

s s g,,e$e s

\ ^s q+,5f 7 1 CASE 80008 - New Haven 1 and 2.

/r%tf cs STAFF'S REPLY TO ECOLCGY ACTION'S APPEAL ON DENIAL OF MOTICN FOR DISMISSAL Ecology Action of Cswego (Ecology Action, EA) has appea' led the ALJ's denial of its motion for dismissal of the application in Case 80008. Ecology Action's appeal is based on the crounds that LILCO is not a serious co-applicant, thus making it im-possible for parties to conduct discovery. EA states that LILCO's lack of interest in constructing the New Haven facilities is evidenced by statements m.ade in pre-filed direct testimony filed by LILCO in Case 8000) (Jamesport) , as well as statements made by NYSE&G in its reply to Ecology Action's motien indicating that ultimate cwnership in a facility may change before the facility is put into operation. Petitioners also claim that the applicants have not complied with 16 SYCR2 Secticns 72.1 and 72.3, since those sections recuire knowledge of the identity of the applicants.

We agree that a firm commitment by the applicants to construct a preposed generating facility is essential to going forward with hearings . Thus, as Ecology Action points cut, we must knew the identity of the applicant (s: in order 419 030 7 9 0626 0 5ll

r ."

CASE 30009 at a minimum to assess its ability to finance the proposed facility, to assess the likely impacts on ratepayers during the construction period and to assess their need for capacity. These censiderations and others will be part of a balancing between installing the facility before there is a capacity demand for it and the cost impacts of early installation.

We believe, hcwever, Ecology Action's argument that viable co-applicants do not exist is as yet unsupported by a record.* The statements referred to in LILCO's 80003 testimony are as yet unsworn and have not been cross-examined. The additional statements made by NYSE&G in its reply to Ecology Action are also insufficient to form a basis for dismissing the application.

Thus, at this time we recommend that the motion be denied without prejudice so that parties may make it later when a record supports it.

Respectfully submitted, UJ / ' o' i

ROBERT GRE*?

Staff Counsel See Staff's respense :- Ecology Action's =ction below (April 6, 1979; 419 031