ML19225B241
| ML19225B241 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 07/17/1979 |
| From: | Flack G MYER, BOWMAN, STROUP & FLACK |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907240341 | |
| Download: ML19225B241 (21) | |
Text
- .
isis McAtaY BUILDING av ronsvvN sT.. N.W.
THOMAS A. BoWM AN ATuPGA. OEORGIA SO303 RODERT H. STROUP 4o /saston4 GARY FLACK ATTORNEYS AT LAW July 17, 1979 Mr. Harold Denton Nuclear Regulatory Commission Phillips Building Room T 202A Washington, D. C. 20555 Re: Docket f50-424 &
- 50-425
Dear Mr. Denton:
The purpose of this letter is to supply additional documen-tation to the Georgians Against Nuclear Energy (GANE)
Request for Reconsideration Petition ~which was filed with you en May 1, 1979. That petition asked the NRC to revoke construction permits which have been issued to the Georgia Power Company, the Applicant, for construction of two Nuclear plants, Vogtle 1 and 2. Gane misrepresentation believes that this is by the appropriate action for three reasons:
Applicant, the requirements of the National Environmental In the Protection Act (NEPA) , P.nd changed circumstances.
alternative, GANE requested the NRC to conduct hearings re-garding these matters. In the two months since GANE filed its petition, certain additional docemantation has become available.
it relates to misrepresenta-This documentation is described a'.
tion to NEPA and changed circumstunces.
The first instance of misrepresentation concerns the Applicant's claim that it needed the output of two Vogtle plants for Georgia customers. In reality, the Applicant was trying to sell portions of the Vcgtle output in other states. Exhibit 1 is a May 14 letter from R. F. Ellis, President of Gulf Power to Charles R. Lowman , General Manager of Alabama Electric Coopera-tive, Inc. This letter indicates that Georgia Power discussed the sale of an interest in Vogtle with certain North Carolina Coopera-Exhibit 1 is tives as well as various Florida electric companies.
evidence that the Applicant intended to use less than the full output of the Vogtle plants to provide for its customers in the State of Georgia. This fact is contrary to Applicant's repre-sentations to the NRC that it needed the output of Vogtle to s rve 0
p s(0 hg6 ff0 i
im
']3
- 6O 4#
368 '
'/4 / g, f
'Z 9 07 24 0 q m
- - - ~ . .-- ....s.q,.;.,,,,,,g. .
I t Page Two Mr. Harold Denton July 27,1979 the Georgia Power Service Area.
Gane has requested more complete information on this matter from the Applicant and will forward it to the Commission upon receipt. In the event that the NRC does not consider this a sufficient basis to revoke the permit, GANE requests a full hearing on this matter. At the hearing, GANE would seek to show that the Applicant wilfully misrepresented its plans re-garding the use of the Vogtle output.
The second instance of misrepresentationOn relates to the Appli-February 10, 1976, cant's testimony regarding conservation.
Mr. W. R. Hensley testified before the NRC His on behalf of the testimony, al-Applicant about its conservation program.
ready part of the record, is to the effect that the Applicant would take affirmative steps at load control and that the Intervenor's complaints regarding conservation were therefore misguided. In concluding his direct testimony, Mr. Hensley noted that the Applicant anticipated a savings of 950 MW through load management, and that this estimate was a reasonable and prudent management datermination.
Since that time, without notifying the NRC, the Applicant had breached this undertaking. In recent testimony before the Georgia Public Service Commission, the Applicant's President, R. W. Scherer, referred all questicns about load management to Mr. E. G. Ellingson. Mr. Ellingson conceded that the 950 MW is no longer a goal of the company. He stated that "the load control programs that we thought would be ef fective prEgrams for us in the long run as possible ways of reducing megawatts, we no longer feel will do that." Relevant excerpts from the unofficial transcript of Mr. Scherer and Mr. Ellingson are attached as Exhibits 2 and 3. Mr. Ellingson did not explain why load control
- was not economical for the Applicant, but led to substantial savings
} in Cobb County, in Douglas, Georgia, and elsewhere in metropolitan I Atlanta. (See the attached Exhibit 4, and Exhibit 1 of the Request I for Reconsideration.)
The Applicant has not complied with the sdastance of its testimony to the NRC about load management; it has misrepresented its actions j
i j 368 109 7
) ,
Mr. Harold Denton Page Three July 17, 1979 to the NRC. Moreover, if it has implemented a program, the Vogtle Plants would not be necessary.
Exhibits 1 through 4, attached to this letter, substantiate.
two examples of misrepresentation by the Applicant. Either manner of misrepresentation is a basis to revoke the construc-tion pe rmit. Revocation is appropriate because the Applicant knowingly deceived the NRC.
In the instant docket, the final Environmental Impact State-ment (EIS) does not consider conserv'ation as required by NEPA.
Neither testimcny at subsequent NRC hearings, nor the order of the NRC itself, can be deemed to modify this defeJt, unless circulated to the public and the relevant governmental agencies for comment. This circulation was not done to the knowledge of GANE. Zabel v. Tabb, 430 F. 2d 199, 213 (5th Cir. 1970), cert.
den. 401 U. S. 910 (1971); Natural Resources De fe -'.se CouncII v.
CaTloway, 524 F. 2d 79, 92, 94.
The GANE petition describes a variety of circumstances that have changed, including the 1978 Energy Act, the escalation in the cost of nuclear fuel and projections of demand for electricity in the coming decade. Each of these factors have changed dramatically since the final EIS was approved in 1974. According-ly, the NRC is under a NEPA duty to reconsider the environmental consequences of its decision in light of the changed circum-stances . Libby Rod and Gun Club v. Poteat, 457 F. Supp. 1177 (Mont. 1978) holds the federal agency is under an obligation to reassess a project as new information becomes available. See also, Monarch Chemical Works v. Exon, 452 F. Supp. 493 (D. Neb.
1978). There, the City proposed a correctional facility with community development funding, but conditions changed after the issuance of an EIS. The court found a duty in the agency to con-sider the need for a supplemental EIS.
Compliance with NEPA does not cease upon preparation of an SIS. The author of an impact statement has an ongoing duty to review its continuing vitality in light of i changing conditions. New developments may render the original EIS inadequate, in which 3d8 ((] case a supplemental impact statement is required. W. Rodgers, Handbook of Environ.
, Law. -
Mr. Harold Denton Page Four July 17, 1979 Similarly, in Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Castle, 439 F. Supp. 980 (E.D.N. Y., 1977), the court applied the " harder look" standard on the basis of new information to fill an in-formation gap in the final EISs.
In the instant docket, the NRC staff concluded that there was inadequate data or studies in existence to conclude that conservation could so reduce the projected need as to obviate the need for even one of the Vogtle plants (Feld testimony, at 38) .
While GANE di'sagrees with this judgment (e.g. , the studies collected in Readings on Energy Conservation, Selected Materials Compiled by Congressional Research Service, Serial No. 94-1 (92-90)) , GANE submits that there are certainly such studies available today.
The NRC should cancel the construction permits for the Vogtle plants until it has re-examined the need for two Vogtle plants.
Such action will fulfill the NEPA duties in light of changed circumstances.
As a practical matter, the regulations of the NRC simply require it to consider changed circumstances and new information which develop af ter preparation of the Final Environmental Impact State-ment. 10 CFR 512 requires the Applicant to report changes since the Final EIS and new in formation has developed. Section 51.21 envisions that this review will take place af ter the construction b is substantially complete. However, in the instant docket, five i years have elapsed since the EIS was prepared. Different circum-stances and new information have already altered the balance against the construction of the Vogtle plants. It is wasteful to continue to authorize the expenditure of billions of dollars for construction if the facts now warrant the termination of construc-tion. Rather than re-examine changed circumstances at the operat-ing license stage, the Commission should conduct this review immediately, before additional funds are wasted.
Circumstances have changed substantially since the Final EIS was circulated in 1974. Today, conservation is recognized as the 368 III
. eeg g eg g g e aes 89
i un a
Page Five Mr. Harold Denton July 17, 1979 1 I
cheapest method to meet our energy needs, whileEach solarof energy these is a major part of our national energy policy. technologies wa address to the nation. The President also stressed the Yet, the Applicant desirability of using our coal resources.
proposes to sell part of the new coal generated Scherer plants The new national and decrease its conservation efforts.
energy program described by the President is a substantialIf the national change not considered by the NRC.it would seem to require thatd
- gram applies to the Applicant, the Applicant maintain ful.' use of the Scherer The President's position plants, exp '
construction of the Vogtle plants.is in essence what GANE has been a 2 In conclusion, any one of the above-described conditions - the :
ndsrepresentation, the requirements of NEPA, or changed circum- :
stances - would justify the NRC revoking At a minimum, the constructionLhese conditions l
permits for Vogtle.a full hearing Thisbefore is additionaltrue particularly ruoneyinis light wasted on an un- i necessary nuclear plant. co take action at this time and of 551.21. GANE urges the NRC for Vogtle.
revoke the construction permits .
Very truly yours ,
1 Gary lack 9
L GF/1 368 112 1
Y 994 ## ##FW 90%
.. v MAY 17 BN GULF POWER COMPANY 703T OFFICE 80X H5t .
PENSACOLA, FLORIDA 32520 r.. r. n tus. tr.
- mm* May 14, 1976-Mr. Charles R. Lowman ,
General Manager .
Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc. ~ -
Post Office Box 55C -
~
Andalusia, Alabama 36420 ,
Dear Mr. Lowman:
Your letter cf April 22, 1976 to me in response to my letter of April 15, 1976 addresJed to Mr. R. W. Scherer.of .
Georgia Power Company was guite surprising in view of the -
fact that I did'not send you a copy of that letter because you ~
were not directly involved as far as Gulf Power Company is .
concerned. In retrospect, I think the. recipients of your letter probably find it very helpful because you succintly and vividly portrayed the problems we face in . securing the cooperation of the four cooperatives who, based on your letter, may be looking to you for advice in this matter. ,
Gulf's representatives explained during the meetings -
held with our Jour rural electric cooperative customers that the .
opportunity for Gulf to participate appeared suddenly, due to the Municipal Electric Association of Georgia's, decision to -
reduce the amount of its participatioy in the Vogtle Plant leaving approximately~30 percent of the capacity available for o thers . Further, this was not a matter that had been under : .
, lengthy consideration. We also explained that Gulf had no .
experience in the regulatory requirements involved in participation in nuclear power projects and that we were simply trying to meet a very tight time schedule which Georgia had prescribed as necessary -
to reactivate construction in time to meet a 19 83 commercial operation schedule. We advised them that we were acting on advice ,
of Georgia's counsel, who had considerable experience in such matters, I that a waiver was probably the best means of expediting mandatory -
, anti-trust reviews.
At no time have we ever indicated or intimated that 'tdua f time element was not critical, as suggested in your letter. To .
- have donc so would have created, to paraphrase your letter, an l " air of unreality."
f* We made it clear to the cooperatives that Gult's Participation in the Vogtle units would benefit all of Gulf's customers. We answered their questions concerning the cost of the s ERw/8/r 1
! 360 l13 i
SilEET No.2
' ' , 'R. T. ELLi$. Ja.To Mr . Charles R. Lowman May 14, 1976
- " Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc. -.
plant, etc. , based on information we had. Our answers must have suf ficed for we have had no requests for~ data or other information frc.n any of our four cooperative customers. p My letter to Mr. Scherer of Georgia Power Company .
pointed out that the only responseAs you of the cooperatives apparently know, had beenthey all responded one of noncommitment.
to the effect that they are Thatnot fitsinmya definition position to of give us a noncommitment.
response at this time. '
As to your statement concerning coordination of electric utilities, every operating electric supplier in the.
State of Florida has an invitation to join with other investor-owned municipal ~and cooperative entities in the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group which began operating in October 1972'and represents 99+ percent ofItthe waselectric for suchgeneration purposes FCGandwas distribution formed facilities in the state.
and has been successfully operating for nearly four years.
Whether or not Gulf could still participate in the -
Vogtle units, I cannot say. _I am informed Georgia Power Comoany Carolina Coopergtives and Jacksonville has had_ discussions wit!n- Nort h
_ Electric _ Au thority and' contacts hv F1mvida Phear & T.icht and '
The capacity is needed by Gulf and seminole Electric Cooperative.
the benefits to our customers apparently would have been considerable.
I have no regrets for trying. .
- Yours very truly, w
R. F. Ellis, Jr.
RFEjr:ccg ,
cc: Chairman W. T. Mayo.
Florida Public Service Commission 700 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. M. J. Parish, III, Manager Choctawhatchee Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Post Office Box 612 De.Funiak Springs, Florida 32433 Mr. llenry F. Pruett, Manager Escambia River Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Post Office Box 428 Jay, ilorida 32565 368 114 M**
e w myy
- p' y~K-
.y .
~
- y. ( I I' (By Mr. Lackey) Have you had a chance to look at
.~ Q '
f j 2 ,those two exhibits, Mr. Scherer? I Yes, I have.
i 3 h' A 4 I 1 Q And do you see the column I was referring to in the i I t
'I
\ in the other exhibit?
1 5 .-
l'77 Exhibit 8thatisnot .
~"
I. i Yes, I see it.
I .
6 A ,,
I c
column 7
Q Do you have any explanation of why that l
I B il called " Load Management" was not included in the Exhibit 5 i i l 9 ; that you have in front of you in Mr. Ellin, son's q testimony?
[
l ,
I t~hink Mr. Ellingson can address the question and 4 10 l
A l probably answer it. My guess -- my thought would be that 11 f.
I 12 ( it may very well be rolled into some other of these columns, f That would 13 rather than separated out just es load management.
e p
14 ,be my judgment, but I am sure Mr. Ellingson can respond.
[ 13 h
Q Is it your testimony that there was no policy de-
+l n j 16 jcision to exclude load management?
i
,i 17 i
A You mean in the preparation of this testimony? 5 i
It '
t I
18 j Q Yes. Ln T.e individual wSo i h
- v 19 .I A There was nn policy decision.
t, l 20 is responsible for the testimony prepare <1 it, and he can cc C
.[ in any way that he feels is proptr and prudent m 21 address it b
and, in fact, conveys as simply as possible what was done.
i[ 22 '
- t. I Is it your position or is it the position of 23 l Q
{
- load control devices, load man-q 2.s , Georgia Power Company now that ,
, are not a feasible way to influence 25 lagementcontroldevices, ~
6
! ' J. R. PRICE mms %/[
CFRTIFtf D COL'RT KFPO315 2 E18 Cfl3f M M A YO P D. O M L I* .
\ T I .\ N I \ r is .* i tu< . --...,- ..... .. ,,,,,...
..r. ..,- . --..~
. I l
.I ( long-run demand for electricity? I, y 2; A Now, you're talking about positive load control R E 3 , devices, such as might be found at Cobb County EMC?
l r d
l Q Yes, sir, as opposed to passive devices. !
, i '
L 5
I A I think Mr. Ellingson can very effectively address '
I ,
l 6 i that subj ect. ,
I '
[L i CO!D;ISSIONER KIMBROUGH: I don' t think he is 7 l t 8 going to ansuer any of Mr. Ellingson's questions, and
[ I I 9t I don't know that on cross he would have to. So, I f f.
10 believe you better save them for I!r. Ellingson.
(.
i k 11 ( liR. IACKEY: I was asking him, sir, what Georgia j i 12j Power's position was with re'spect --
j.. .
13 COT!ISSIONER KIMBROUGFI: You can see he is not 14 ansuering it. 11e is ref erring it back to !fr. Elling-l l
[-
- i. 'S son.
- i. k
/ 16h Q (By Mr. Lachey) Let ac ask the question this way:
I p e
17 Do you know what Georgia Power's position is with respect
[: 18 ! to load management control devices?
i 19 A Ue do not exclude anv kind of a device that might ,
j e
be beneficial in reducing the requirements for building new e
f 20 I
! t l That is.a definite policy statement. Now, the l 'p 21 i Pl ant.
co f methodology that might be adopted to achieve that kind of e 22 C i ).
[ [ 23 goal can very well be addressed by I!r. Ellingson.
It 24 , Q So, as a policy, Georgia Power is not opposed to
, 4:
J: 25 i load management control devices?
[.
-l
(! J. R. PRICE ,
g i CERTlilED COURT RfrOR1ER 6'8 CUMPERL AND RO AD. '? E.
8
{ '
ATL AN rA, cmy.e3 gntyg
e
.r .
As a policy, G. ,,ia Power Company is in favor of I A ,
+
to build 2 [l' any kind of device that will reduce the requirement
) 3 ' new plant. .
Now, that leads us to another subj ect. Is it l 4 1 Q I M.
- 5 l;not true .that Georgia Power's cash flow is greater than its 'i;
,1 I qi a 6 Inet income? ,1! '
I don't know. Mr. Scott could tell you that.
l', .[.;
I 7f A And is it not true that Georo,in Pouer has a cash 8 ; Q
, e tax credits and income flow which results fron investment 9 L
' 6
{, 10 tax deductions resulting froa depreciation? .
,l\ l '.
t 11 i
A It has cash flow from those items, yes, sir. '
Is it not true that these cash flows are generated i
1 p 12 Q
! 13 by construction projects of Georgia Power Company?
To the degree that the investment tax credit is
[ I. 14 A i 4 h, to the degree that
, y imeasured by the constructica program, I - 15 1 J \
6 1 dv 16 fdepreciationisbyvirtueofplantbeinginservice,yes, N s
l _
17 l sir. .
4 Q
And if it became apparent that the Company did not Lj 18 to floe uould m j i 19 need new plant, is it not true that this ca m s
t f t
?
20 cease?
y.
- ! 'A That particular cash flow related to investment
{ 21 tax credit would cease, but certainly depreciation would not.
t -
I
- 17 22 I Q Uould depreciation decrease?
- $ 23 1.'
A Uo, it. ouldn't w increase, but it certainly wouldn't f.~ 24 Ft.
fs 25 cease.
J. R. PRICE CrRT;FIED COL'RT Rt!' ORT ER
.Q m o taratwo soui. s r.
l u n .. ..r.m.m n ,. .
'{ .,
- 9. ,j Q
Looking at Exhibit 8, what did you forecast?
1 ,! '
2
{, A 10,093.
d What did you forecast in 1977 for the year 1978?
3 , Q I
4 A I don't have that number with me.
I 5 Q Look on Exhibit 8.
! That was forecasted ,
6! A That was not fou_ casted in 1977.
l in 1976. It was in the case that occurred during 1977.
7 What did you 8 Q Well, I vill chpnge my question.
9 forecast for 1978 in the 1977 rate case?
10 ! A ,11,429.
l it i Q What was the actual for 1978? ,
i 12 A 10,113.
Would you agree , subject to check, that the 1978 13 Q Ijh T'
- forecast as reflected in the 1977 rate case was over by y
i 15 13 percent over actual?
. i A In which year?
16 i i
17 Q 1978?
r 18 A Yeah, I will agree to that. .
I dion't hear you.
19 Q A T said I agree with that.
20 l
23 Q Okay. Isn't it true that in the last rate case, thc he anticipated 22 ,
.3mpany's econometric forecast was reduced oy t I
i effect of load management program?
23
- A There was a reduction to the load management, yes, s 24
[ 25 I sir.
368 .la 1
CIR11 D CC' RT I 'OR TLu 63 4 C .tGERI. A'.'D Ro tD. N.E I AI! 4 ! .\ t'.F OKf:I \ }01)(. ,
rcpyge .
Q Are those not reflected on Exhibit 9~
fj'lf[ E .
Yes, sir, they are.
NM2 A
b 4
The next to the last column on the right, right?
3 Q A Yes, sir.
4}
the Company's forecast in the l 5 Q Isn' t it true that 6 current case does not reduce the econometric forecast !.for :6 7
an anticipated effect of load management programs? :
8 A That's not correct. ,
j Would you show me on Page 54 of 61, Exhibit 77, 9 Q 10 where those reductions are?
11 A Those reductions are contained in the new factor !
12 adjustments.
I am talking about on Page 54 of 61, your Exhibit g 13 Q I 14 77. i A Yes, sir.
'5 '
Where are they in those columns reflected on that I, 16 Q 17 En ge of Exhibit 77? :
18 A They are contained in the reductions due to price ,
They are not the same numbers 19 conservation and efficiency. .
20 that showed up in 1978. '
i Q
Turn to page 14 of 61 of your Exhibit 77.
- 21 I don't have that.
A I am sarry. 8
} 22 l Q You don't have your prefiled testimony?
6 23 '
I t A I am sorry. In the previous case?
rj 24 I Q No , in this case.
25 368 119 J. R. PRICE CERTIFif D COL:RT Rf POf.HR -
6u cnuru aso aoan.m., rn.
l A n i s , s e,i os m A g
A f ,
.-,,..,.,._,,,,_,f_,,
.iL
- 7pfeb I thought you said previous case. .
(Ed.?!dN$6' A lkd$ This
,c~ .
, Q No, sir, I may have, but I didn't mean it. '
1,J4t?
&wt 2 ' ,
3 fcase. ,
'N Which page again? r 4 A 5 . Q Page 14 of 61, Exhibit 77.
6 A Okay. '
of 61, ,
I Q
Looking at the middle paragraph on Page .
! 7 in that paragraph 3 I
8 Exhibit 77, you explain, do you not, -
I 9
following the capital C the changes that result in the third 10
' column from the right on Page 54 of 61 in Exhibit 77? i I '
That's right. That's right.
11 A And would you please read aloud I All right, sir.
12 Q 13 the third sentence beginning in the paragraph immediately
$ 77. It l
14 following the capital C on Page 14 of Exhibit f
15 begins with the words , "These future --
A "These future improvements in appliance and process 16 17 efficiencies , additional insulation standards, new lighting -
18 standards, conservation ethics and tariff schedules can be 19 expected to change the relationship between electricity '
demand and the independent variables, gross state product 20 21 and total personal income."
Okay. I want to ask you to take a look at a 22 Q 23 certified copy of your testimony in the last rate proceeding beginning at Page 15 and extending through Page 22 which I
) 24 will ask the reporter to' mark as Exhibit 85. Is that correct ,
25
- j. R. PRICE
! CEk11FitD COCf.T tr0RTts h 6% CMP.* F l AND Riln 5' f P
.s s ' \N I j . . - t s <* , . I i i..
s ,
1 .
ir M.pa(y f 32$WFpu ,..pIV.
Q y g ,~ Reporter, 85?
I.
2YN02I
, MR. PRICE: Yes, sir. .
G2p>
7a ,
WW' 3p (Exhibit 85 was marked for l i T.t I '
et8 a identification.) .
5 , Q (By Mr. Bowers) Look over on Page 18.- .
t
- 6, A Yes. i
1
, c.
- 7 Q Beginning at Line 20, would you read the first u v
8 sentence reflected there beginning on Line 20, Page 18 of 3l 9 Exhibit 85. ji 10 A " Future major improvements in appliance and indus- ,
i.
11 trial process efficiencies, additional installation standards, 3 .-
12 , new lighting standards, the conservation ethic and rate g 13 schedules designed to reduce load are probably the most signi- i y l ficant new developments that can reasonably be expected to
. 15 i affect future peak load growth." ';
16 Q Does that sentence not relate to that column in '
t j7 Exhibit 8 labeled " Reduction Due to Conservation Price and U; i
i I ja Improved Efficiency"?
k ;}{ .
a i
39 A It does.
.]
I j
j 20 Q Is that not'the same heading that appears in the '
21 third column from the right on Page 54 of 61 of the current j, i Exhibit 77?
22 l l
' A Correct. :
23 t.
24 Q Aren't those identical? l l, 11 25 A No, they are not, and I might elaborate a little b l
l
-l 1
, J R. PRICE ,
CER11Fli D COURT REPOR UP.
614 CUM'.rRt .\ND RC.1D. N E.
}
J
.t ri .iN ; a (J OF.I.\ E ' r, L .~ \
A . -~....r.....
.H.T;y.w" y s.. lip i,},
- ZDMA%,' chat 'you will understand what has happened in the fore- \;
Y
- 8)~' -
v< I f,?3?e;, casting process at Georgia Power Company.
- 3 E.SP Y The 950 megawatts that was listed in the last case as .i, 3 y is a number that was gi r
4 l improvements due to load management ;
5 predicated not only upon what we saw as economic growth in , ,
king into ;
the State, but also some programs that we were loo I 6 i , ,
i]
- at that time at Georgia Power Company.
7 j l'
First of all, Line 50 would have to be reduced simply r.p '
8 'i because some of the programs, particularly the Answer House, 4' 9
h [ul ,, ,,
new insulation star.dards on new buildings , improvements in t e -b ;
10 i ly I c$nmercial sector that we are looking for, won't occur s mp
'.l.
' i r[.d i ,
12 because those new customers won't occur.
f$
So the 950 megawatts would have to be reduced considerab1;r ,
13 '
e ja just for that.
[ f Secondly, the load control programs that we thought ' i 15 ble .' !
e would be effective programs for us in the long run as possi l' ,
16 17 ways of reducing megawatts, we no longer feel will do that. e i ,
i And in addition, we have , as I mentioned earlier, increas -
18
[ L ed our percentage turndown due to new factor improvements 4 t
l 19
[
about -- well, eight-tenths of a percent out of four in t P 20 l 1983, which in this case is about a fifth, 20 percent, i.'
1 21 ;
, [
increase in the turndown, and the turndown itself is smaller I!
22 jj l I
only because our load forecast is now smaller. l i "
l 23 I '
I 1
some of the things that were in the 950 are gone, t
f So, 24 i,; ,
25
' simply because the growth isn't there and some of the programs u1, il J. k. PRICE "
i CEPTirilA (9t'KT RFPORll t 684 nblBI A' AND ROAD. N L i... ,; i ,.l i -
g.;3
- 1at'85Gt4 gegy; j
e --w .
l
'2 Slid [d& D I*
.. 4 7Ag ? 7
- w~ /
J Mi /
,,3ve been reevaluated.
} T,U.,
.~ k',TQy ,fThe rest of it is included in our new factor improve-w wm R@j) , 3 ments in additional relative amount to the forecasted loads. l
- 1. , l 2 .-
?/f 4 i That is why I am stating that the load management program and 5
our efforts at thermal envelope efficiency improvements, in 6
particular, the Answer Houses , our work on trying to get older 7
retrofitted and our outreach programs with low-income people 8
are all directed at improving thermal envelope, and we are ,
9 reducing consumption, not only at the peak but year-round.
10 Q You don't dispute that the description of the I n, . reductions reflected in the '77 case and those reflected in 12 this case for . reductions due to conservation, price, improved
, 13 efficiency are described using precisely the same words;
}, u isn't that correct?
Il I think if you will re-d the documentation of the 15 A l
il 16 last forecast, rather than just the testimony, which was l
6 17 submitted as working papers --
l First, I will ask you to be responsive to my 18 Q 19 question.
20 A I am.
f 21 Q Just say yes or no or I don't know, and then you can explain.
l 22 23 A My explanation will show you that I don't have to
^
24 say no.
J CHAIRMAN PAFFORD: Just a minute, Mr. Bowers. I 25 f
J. R. PRICE CERTIFifD COUk1 Rit'ORTER l 614 CU5.:i tit L AND ROAL). If E.
.m v:s cmxcm im;
- I . ...'. r.L'J *~.- !",L,3 ..,.. . . _ . . . . . . , , , , , , , , , J,
9
, 3h$dhN y
.= i gi
.et i asked you, Mr. Ellingson, to respond to the question,
_ ig ';-
7 e: to be responsive.
r;qi 2 7
- . 3 THE WITNESS: All right. My answer is no at the 1
4 moment.
5 CHAIRMAN PAFFORD: His answer was no. .
6 THE WITIESS: And I will explain.
7 Q (By Mr. Bowers) Your answer is no; is that 8 correct?
9 CHAIRMAN PAFFORD: Just a minute. Mr. Miller?
Io , MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairmun, I believe you were u -
going to give Mr. Ellingson the opportunity to explain.
12 CHAIRMAN PAFFORD: If he wants to explain his answer 13 of no, he will have the opportunity to explain, Mr. Bowers.
g 14 His answer was no.
15 Do you wish to explain your answer?
f 16 THE WITNESS: Yes. On the last forecast, the j7 documentation we sent to the staff on Page 24 as a working l is paper that explained the development and derivation of l 39 our forecast sected right in the middle of Page 24 that the forecast dots nat incorporate the effects of any 20 21 future Georgia Power load management effort'.
22 What I am telling you now is our forecast does, 23 and those future conservation improvements do. That
.ja is why they are not identical.
}
25 Q (By Mr. Bowers) But the words that describe the i
j J. R. PRICE CE kT!* ~D COL'R1 REPORTE R 7g JV 74 i
618 CI'MNTRt AND ROAD. N E
- 3. T; TA C rs W,t A u;A
J rim %
! $. i Conservation and <j[-
M j column labeled "Reouctions Due to Pr ce,
]*f
'77 are identical, are they not?
hl-
.. l
[2 ,! Efficiency" for 1979 and [
. .. j Reading the documents, but reading the documents 3 i A
) They include our load
'd they mean something different. i management efforts now; they did not then, as stated
(;!
5 l
ff explicitly in the documents that were submitted to the sta 16 6 >
. .l i
7 then and the ones that are submitted now. :l , '
Your answer is yes, the words are identical? f 16 t'I 8 Q The meanings behind .j' 9 4 The words are identiccl.
- l the words if one looks intc the research and the work t at h j}l' l
- l y 10 The
'! lies behind the tables shows that they are different.
ed l 11 l ;i i ,; :
' meanings are different.
12 Il Would not the inclusion of the effects of load
) 13 Q l4
- 14 management as contemplated in the 1977 rate case further L i
f,q 15 reduce the Company's forecast in this case? t 3 ;,
+
programs ,.-
Are you asking me if those load management i]g A
f 16 are possible and that we should include them?
l 17 ..t No, that . .s not what I asked you at all. .l la Q .
Would not the effects of load managem:'nt contemplated for ,
.'1 19 ll j the 1977 case, if incorporated into this case, further i ,i 20 .
reduce the forecast which you have in this case?
21 1
g A
As we would interpret the 950 now or then?
22 i Q My question is just mathematical.
23 ,
A I know it is just mathematical.
> 24 Just a minute. We are not CHAIRMAN PAFFORD: '
25 l
J. R. PRICE 3[)@ l3 CER11 Flit. COU AT RLi'Olt TER I
61l C.i:'t'll ~ ? AND llO At). Kf. i k't. T 4 dr % e *s'li, i
?I$?!!]$?'h:EW 2
ww4r
- 47;lh /
going to have any arguing, and when he asks the i :A % p' '(i I"33N 2 question, you respond to it.if you can.
i Niii'* l Okay.
"cv 'if
- 3 T11E WITNESS: t y(, 4 CHAIRMAN PAFFORD: We are not going to have an J , l 4 5 argument.
[ I wl.ll reask it.
6 MR. BOWERS: ,
7 Q (By Mr. Bowers) Would you not agree that if I 8
took the effects of load management as contemplated in 1979, 9 as reflected in the second column from the right of Exhibit 7, 10 and incoroorated those into the load projections made on Page "5 4 of 61, Exhibit 77, that I am going to reduce the total
~
11 l
l 12 system load reflected in the second column from the right i
$ 13 of Page 54 of Exhibit 777 14 A_ You can do any subtractions you'd like, and you 15 will come up with those numbers; but I would not agree with
- l 16 ' that subtraction.
I j 17 Q Please answer my question.
' 18 A I just did.
39 Q Would you not reduce the peak forecast by doing 20 that?
l 21 A I would not, no.
22 l
Q We must have gone to a different school to add and 23 subtract then. .
Hasn't the Company asked this Conmission for permission l) 24 25 I to institute a time-of-day pricing rate structure?
I I
' } J. R. PRICE (
CLRTirl .D COUkT RFPOR1[R f l
' i 6il CL".'.tlRLAND ROAD. N E.
1, Ait A'. I A Cl 0N! \ 10 0.s I .. .. . . , . . .
uss ~ %% ,
v.s\
- l. Beatinc theyP,.ea(Saves Dolari, Al Yeari t .w . . ..
k w ,
. . Don Stone, city manager, says he e'stli? off air c'onditioning units during expecte b By PLU TRIBBLE ,
' its 3rd season with a system that controls mates the savings last wear through shaving to ' perimis, but in a system this big, it d ,
m=s s'd ""* 2,6 d air conditioning units. -
Ken Vanderslice, city manager, estimates be around $137,000. College Park's systern . amount to much or, a larg 3
e Peak Power Period. 'Itat's the vital Although a small system with only 4,800 thit East Point has saved approximately controls around 1,000 units. v~ i.a s phrase. "The best part of the savings !s that , we'. . customers, ;he Newnan Sewerage, Wa s Peak Power Period determines how much $130.000 each year since the system was activ- ,
i tated and he estimates the savings will be ap. . can pass this siong to our customers,": Stone j Light Commiss,on espe
- a consumers pay for electricity and how much says. "What it means is that we have not had g agement system by next summer, acc i poner capacity a utility company must build, t prbrimately the same this year as the city to go up on our electracal rates. It has stabi; . Italph Chatham, electric superintendent For the etitire state, there is one peak shaves peak power demands. "In the meantime, we try to run the
.The Municipal Electric Authority of lized them." , ,s 1,6 .
power period, the one time of the year con- , , Three of the other power cities are in the , water plant during off peak hours and to (c ,
seme-s use more electricity than any other. . Georgia, an organization of 46 power cities back about a couple of volts at our substa-It's that long hot summer day when, and one county system, alerts its members ^ process of planning for installation of formalsys somewhere between 3 and 6 pm.,. everyone . that a peak period is approaching and those -
i
'1 Peak load demand down this way."
with air conditioners turns them on and sends , . with load management systems put them into' , peak day this year. (
CityManager Frank Turner said he hopes . . . The remaining cities fight the peak powe
" rr.etert whirring at high speeds. .effect' _
To make sure there is enough electricity Vanders!!ce says what happens is that the : Covington's system, which will ' trol only ., period throgh a varie .
'for that one all-consuming day, power compa- system turns off the compressors on air condi- , governmental units at the present ime, should a. nave of ten been effecti nies must build generators with the capacity tioning units for about seven minutes every 45 . be installed in time for the peak pe(lod. lie an
- during the past two7earrasTresult 850.000
' to provide for the peak. And the companies 1o 50 minutes. , .
t ticipates this will save up n"' to $50,U00^^' a yeay4. v. , of the hard work of the Cartersville Wom charge electric rates based on the extreme use Don Martin, superintendent of utilities for once it is installed. ,
Lawrenceville, which also has a loa f manage ' J "Then I hope we will be able a afford to Club.
to cover the cost of building the generators. usually . expand the system to include business, Indus 3W;RalWd~glesby, superi l The only way to fight this is to shave the ment _ system, says their custome1 electrical system, szid Cartersville is lucky to peak power demand. And no one is working " don't know when the compressors the savings would be four times that much."
. servation. #eThe turnedh women initiated trytheand program indivi
. of electricity used on humid sweltering sum. .. keep running, s .
\ Of the three hope to have systems cities,i two years ago and they are still doing most of .
l mer state.
days, than the
- 50 .
electric
,.y.
cities in the;".4 "So far we have lad no complailtts aboutour system which wcNstalled last year. It's Mariet . ... _
- Of the cities in the state that' sell 'elee- hard to come up withM do}lar figure but we cutomers. Jack Crane, city manager, says.-the! paper .- with stories explaining the program,
( ;' this' city has some 24,000 electric customers. .
c tricity, The Journal contacted 13 in the metro ~ estimate we will save more than $100,000 , Marietta has just taken bids for a load . send notices to the city's customers and notify P
area to find out how they go about reducing year by shaving our peak power demands,"; management system and Crane says he ex. ,the radio stations when a peak period is ap-j the demand of their customers during the' Martin says. .
f Lawrenceville plans to espand its system pects it to be installed in time for next sum- ' proaching, In addition, the city has installed flashing 3
seven or eight days of summer the peak period to include appliances such as water heaters, mer.
r , . .. ..
could occur. Meanwhile, 'the" city has been making , Ilghts at each of.Its four shopping centers that Among these 13 cities, only three have Martin said. And East Point is in the process some effort at shaving without the use of a iwarn businessmen when a peak period is ap-formal load management systems, systems
- right now of adding 250 more switches to con- . formal system. Ilowever, Crane thinks the ef g proaching. .
that can be activated to control air condition- trol that many note air conditioners. .,
' "Our program is completely voluntary
. ers throughcut their electrical territories. College Park installed its load manage " fort has made no difference. .i The city, the school board and the housing , . , , , . ,
East Point, with the largest number of ment system in 1978 and is pleased with the , . authority have been working customers among the three,1,600, is entering savings it has made in the use of power. ,
,~',.,-c,,._'
together turning; .See
- POWER, Page (
'a ,y ,
^'
. .,e' . * ,.
<, , V 1
. 4.AQp P d M _
J
'
- G .'
4'. ,,
p- x _ _ . , _ _ _ . _
A 127 .-r h .
WSM s.Nw#s M "' "
j Wm m
.-- .. ~ . . . ~ . -. . . . . '.
-,i hasn't worked too weH.'It's peak demand war l and we have received excellent cooperation" Oglesby says. "We also ask our 5,200 custom- up last year, but the city 6d not go up on its ;
crs to stagger loads. For example, not to use rates, Howeu said. . .
clothes dryers or do heavy cooking at our peak He admits it's hard to convince the city's penods.,in addition to turning off air condi- many apartment dwellers not to turn os the j tieners. _* '- <' O '. air when they get home at 5 in the afternoon. 2 Palmetto, a smau city with a small sys-- On the other hand, when MEAC calls Bo ' i nr tem,830 customers, has been able to maintain l ford that a peak period is immanent the city . .._
electrical rates because of voluntary coopera.
tion and because.it 'redistrubted its e:ectrical- turns off the water plant pumps and puts. its i E g' load - evened out the number'of cutomers sewerage plant on a standby generator.:
per line. %: f .-
' City Manager Bobby Kerlin says.ltsd 3;ig > g I ', 2 N y )i, 4 'I U
Roy Sneed, raperintendent of the electri- : Impossible for smauer cities to get a dollar d cal department, says be does not have a dollar . figure on how much they save, but that Buford I lA iI b<
p' N dt'
}/k d figure, but "we are maintaining our electrical - is saving by following these simple steps.- ~
na L1.g..rg h> +a[
rates because we cut our peak load last year." ~ ' Acworth,. a small_ city in north. Cobb . '
u; Norcross has found it helpful to discour- j. k age athletic events during peak power periods,1which is not a member of MEaG,is launchingyl.i a program July 1 to cut back on its peak load.
- 4 O gly says Doug Wood, the Gwinnett County , city's '- '"- -
electrical engineer.; d.. A ..:.- Mayor.' Ralph' Coolidge 'says' the city'is-
"Wben the temperature goes above 90 at educating its residents by providing them with . ~
night we &scourage athletic events and most tips put out by Georgia Power on how to cut -
of the time people are willing to postpone or peak load demands and wH1 begin July 1 giv.I
, cancel games. Even little league. The only ing short blasts of .the civil defense siren to '
' time it gets tricky is during tournament time." warn people when a peak period is approach :
The city also encourages its residents to ing. ' O.
-- ' -. , . g ., 4 '
buy high efficiency appliances and to insulate : ~. ."We also are installing lights at the mala d all they can. In addition, they try to educate h h@t & W M 4 their people to what the peak power demand M t.o b h h g M d U M means, accordmg to Mayor Lillian Webb. P'#5g , -
Their efforts are working. Last year they , ,, ,. ..
cut their peak demand. .
In addition, Jai Pettys, councilwoman, Jackson, in Butts County, has not had an will call the heavy industrial users and ask for '
,e lectrical rate increase in three years, basi- their cooperation is cutting back on power-cally because it works with its four major during the crucial periods.
- Don Stokley, MEAG general manager, put industnes.
Lewis Freeman, city administrator, says the energy saving. money saving load manage-he contacts the industries when a peak de. ment into perspective with some dollar figures
, mand period is approaching and they cut off for last year's shas ed peak period last year.
, their air conditioners an hour earlier in the At 6 p.m. June 25,1978, the peak power
- afternoon and start them an hour later in the demand hour fcr the entire state, he estimates '
N mornings. that the 47 members of MEAG shaved about
- *So f at we have been able to handle load 70,000 killowats off the previous year's de . ;
a management by doing this. We have only 1,350 mand.
custorrea and this hasn't become a problem
- Putting a dollar figure on that, you come up with a minimum savings of around
- for '.s ye'." .
Fairturn is trying to keep down its peak 32.5 million for the year among the 47 systems *
- demands by " word.cf. mouth," according to the that belong to MEAG. Just by reducing the citypanager, Ales Howell Sr,Moweverf this ' peak demand."
','. .,N
- } y .
e . ,1 .
%. s _ _ . ~. _ u _ m ,s, g
- . , .e.
r _.
I 5.C' l ~Titt ATLOT4 CowTn UT10% %n lune 14.19 9- , , [Q.Q g%
, b Electric 'ill Get Refund -
\ ' J, '
t DOUGLAS -- Customers who cooperated in an theirelectric ,,3 ..
- power conservation program here will get a refund onpower / e. Mbills
,j th t -
municipany operated el etrical utility. is:
Solom'on recommended to the Douglas City Comm.
this week that power customers who volunteered to put smanagement to share in the city's savings.
He said that over 500 industrial and residential customers O. ')
' had the sutches instated last year. This enabled the city dur- -
I.-
,. ing peak demand periods to shut off the controBed air condi-tioning units on a rotating basis for seven minutes out of each -
, 28-minute period. l
% _. - 3
, _.