ML19242B177
| ML19242B177 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 08/02/1979 |
| From: | Flack G MYER, BOWMAN, STROUP & FLACK |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908070621 | |
| Download: ML19242B177 (20) | |
Text
- .
JOHN R. MYER ir is MEALD S U I LDI N G TH O M AS A. BOWMAN sv rens m s .. N.w.
ATL.ANTA. GEC RGIA 3C3C 3 4o4,sazasa4 arronNns AT L&W August 2, 1979 Mr. Harold R. Denton Director, Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Phillips Building Room T 202A Washington, D. C. 20555 Re: Docket Nos. 50-424 & 50-425
Dear Mr. Denton:
In connection with the current Georgia Power Company (GPC) application for a rate increase, additional information centinues to become available that is rele vant to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) consideration of whether to re-voke the construction permit for Vogtle 1 and 2. GPC has provided a more recent projection of the capacity of the GPC system. The projection indicates somewhat greater capacity than the GPC December, 19 78 submission to the NRC. A copy of this projection is attached as Exhibit "1."
I have enclosed a copy of the recent testimony of Dr. Keewhan Choi as Exhibit "2." Dr. Choi was hired by the Georgia Public Service Commission to evaluate the method of the GPC to fore-case peak demand. Historically, Dr. Choi's forecast of future energy needs has been c loser to the mark than the Company's.
Dr. Choi estimates the growth of the annual peak demand for the next fourteen years to be approximately 3.7%. In contrast, the projection submitted to the NRC shows an average annual growth of 4.6%. By the mid-1980's, the difference in the GPC forecast and Dr. Choi's forecast is greater than the entire capacity of the two Vogtle plan'-3. For example, t- ~'C forecast of peak demand for 19 84 exceeds Dr. Choi's fore ast by 2208 MW, and the increase widens thereafter. More significantly, by Dr. Choi's fo re cas t , the Company will have a 1989 peak demand of 14,208 MN.
If the Company continues its constructicn program as planned in Exhibit "1" attached hereto , bat does not construct Vogtle 1& 2, i t w ill h ave re se rve s o f 18 ,62 7 "N o r more th an 30% reserve capacity without Vogtle. If GPC does not sell a share of Sche rer plants this reserve capacity will be even greater. Th)s 522 3n5 c'
@Qg' a 7 9080 . ,
7D o n
e .
Mr. Haroid R. Denton Page Two August 2, 1979 calculation does not include a'lowance for conservation or alternative energy systems as oatlined in the GAFE Petition of May 1, 1979.
The Company appare: ;1y recogni.zes this over-abundaI ce of generating capacity which will result from construe: tion of Vogtle. Recently disclosed letters indicate that in May, 1978, GPC sought to further reduce its share of Vogtle through sales to companies ir North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky and Florida. Obvi asly, GPC does not believe it need; the full output of "egtle for its customers. Copies of these letters are also attached hereto as Exhibit "3." Moreover, R. W.
Scherer, Pre sident o f the Comp any , recently testified that in 1976, Georgia Power sought to sell 90' of the output of the Vugtle plants. A transcript of this part of Mr. Scherer's testimony is not yet available.
I urge the NRC to reconsider its Apt .1 13, 1979 analysis of the GPC need for power based on the - re recent data supplied by GANE. The NRC staf f should recompute its April 13 analysis in light of Dr. Choi's forecast of peak demand and the more recent projections of capacity of the system. I believe that the conclusien of such a study will demonstrate that both Vogtle 1 or 2 are unnecessary to supply the GPC service area with adequate electricity.
Very truly yours ,
Gary Flack, Attorney for GANE GF/1 Encls.
522 306
N. 00lfi h NWCI b JULY i4 lvid GEORLIA P0wtH COMPAtay PAGE - 1 T U G.P C_3 0 ,
_ _ _ . . _ _ - _ . _ _ _ . . - N T_ _ D A fl_ CA$Cy_Y H .; HW_ l_ O A D HW $ 5'Eilil n'~1Sih d_ _
f@.0gCTED
~ ~ ~
~
_ _ _ _ INJTI Q Lt4EliI G0t4 _ Q N [777 Q{T 6,'i
~~ ~" ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~
m Ar.k l y 2 s to FC 5/f8 870d SAVANNAH A D JU $1 Ht t4 T 6/[8 -2).0 - _.
5 t +> A tiYDHU ADJU5{MLNT _ _ . _ _ . 6/78 -23 7 _ ._
5t PA PHtttHLt4CE_ADJUSTHENT 6/18 23,7
-T_-[~C_
~ -- ~
10fAL _b/3J/iH_ _ _, 134h.f l{}2t l.0 _ 3214'.5 31748 1 ___
~ ~
~~~ t t A G Op i 10t4 m A r4 5 L I Y 'l"0 N 6- ) 0'278 7/78 44.4 __ _ . _
' ~ Ht A G OP i10tJ = At4SL t V 1 Ote 6-30-78 - T/78 -44.4 '
~-tt A l t h / (67 f40CLEAH - - ---~M 1/19 761.0 ~
~ 6/F9
~- L AV Ar.N All' ADJusIMtte r 49.0
. IVA IfJlt hCH ANGt A DJUS T ML'f4 T' .g 6/19~ l'.' 0
_ M L L6 PU9 CHASE ADJUSIMEt4T h 6/F9 -75.0
-26.4 SLPA HYl>HO ADJtsS tHir4I ~~
6/19 StPA Pht F t Htf4CL ADJUSIMENT ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ 6/79 26.9
~' - - -
~ ~
TOiAL- ~ ~6/30/79 11167.S 11~0 2 3. 0 3144.5 28.53 Pt AK itiG 50 Mw COHH I Ud ti "' ~ ' ~ ~ 5/80 $0.0 wAtLAct DAM l-6 HYDHO 7 *5/80 325.0 iVA INil HCH Af 4GL ADJUSTMEt4T ' ~. 6/80 -43.0 StPA PHEttktNCL ADJUSIMEtif e. a 6/80 30.8 SEPA HYDHO A D JU S I M E to i 6/80 -30.8 y"w;a
- ~~ ~
i)695.0
~ ~
._ _IOIAI__._ M}9#90 ~ - ] _ ~~ ~ ~ ' - ~~l M99.5 2804.5 ~ 23.98
~ - ~~~ ~
IVA ItJItHCHAN6L ADJu$iHENT~ ~ ~~ ~ ~6/81 -43.0 6/ til
~ ~ ~~
~~~StPA tisDHO Al) Jus t et tei -35.5 St P A PHEfthtNCt ~AOJUSTHEhT 6'/81 ~3 5 . 5 101AL 6/.30/01 14456.5 1228270' ~2174.5 17.~ 71-~ ~ ~ ~
SCutHtH I 800 FC 2/02 808.0
~~ ~ Ann.Hlotti IL< HLTIHL ~ " - - - ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ - 6/82 - -76.0 IVA It4ILHCH5NGt ' ADJu$THf t T 6/82 -1.0 SEPA iM OH O Al> JUS T Ht NI
.. _ SEPA PHtFLkttCt A DJUS I M E idI, Q 6/02 -41.4 m 6/82 41.4
. . , , ____ C.__ ~
,g 15185.5 12817.0 2368.5 18.48 --~7
- ..u .m _ e -. -.- m me .=_.e..- -*
_ . _ _ _ --.____.___e__._ _ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ .______-w ,
. . _ Ex/g 6 f f _ -. ___
m __
,, .,, .ies.we..e e ow n s- **
.em.e
.ufj',!;il'OWCf RS
__ . JuLLC ? i91H GE0Hb}A POWER _ COMPANY PAGE *- 2
._SYST{M.E WANS80t! PLAT { ___
78GPCJO ~
197u - 1990 _
~
5_ - --- _ Uhl[ _._ 0 d E. CAPAyl{ tid Hy LOAD _ H[NESEHVE % AfSEHVE__ _
PH0JLCHD
~~
~ TGIAL' '6/30/02
~
1518'5 3 128I7.0 2368h 18 18..
~ r4055t LL 'O Alf SE P A~t t Y D H O ___ _ _ _ . _6/d3 150 i) _I
~
g --_. . I O I A L 6/10/81 15135.5 13335.0 2000.5 15.00 (O C'et HL H 2 t10 0 FC 2/84 808.0 e - H O . n Y HautJ111td 4-3 PoHP . . _ _ .STOH 4 / ti 4 675.0 W AN A'lotti 3L, kiilHE 6/04 -09.0 f i 'itit l L I L 2 A t. I I HL" 6/64 -46.0 Ib
, TOTAL 6/10/84 16683.6 14058.0 2625.6 18.68 V06 I t. F i 1150' t4tlCLt AR-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ lI/84 1150.0 ,
j ~/ 8 5
[~.NsSEtt'OAM'5LPA~NS 15 -~O SChlHLR 3 703 FCS ___ __ __ _ __ _ _ , 2 / 8 5, _76310 __ _________
p" t""
to At--6/30/as 1 ___ _ _ 7 _____ _.
19 66.6 p 7 7?_. 6 398 q __27;co .
~ ~ - ti Akil t T IS f f hHV NYOHO- ' ^ - ~ ~ ~ ' ADDITION 4/06 100.0 A18 i rno's l'9tiIHL -50.d
~
6/86
~' - - - ~ ~
T O T I. t_ , .of30/86 ~ ~ ~ ~ _
18u16.6~- - 15427(6 3389-6 2?.97- - ~ ~
~ S C HF s.t .2 6 7 6.1 t C 5 2/87 f f> 3. 0 Alt irasari 2 HtIIHL 6/87 -58.0 0
~
['_TVA ~ I N TLHUtt AN6( 'kojuS THE NT _ 6/87_. __
~~ ~~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
TOTAL 6.' _4 0 / u_7 - ~19540 '6 B056.0 3484'.6 21.70
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ VOSTLE 2 115 0 NtsCL L.iR'- ~' 't)/87. __)l 5M C' _. ___].
~~~E - To r Ai:- 0 3 6 ?8 0 _ __ __. _ _ _ _20E90.6 166pl.0__ _ 4W3h6 2H26 60AT H0CK__HYOHO ADDITION 4/89 67.0
_ _ _ __ _A H K w n _! titt i . S A_ L 5. h.H L T. I. H. E_ _ -_ - .
,.~ 6/u9 -30.0
'19.~69 - --
~" ~ -
TOTAL 6/30/09 IV 2072726 17 317.~0 3410.6
, ATK!N50N SAlbd'HEitoE.'~ Z _~-~ ~~T_{_-~L 1 6/90-~~~ -68.6 _ _ _ _ _. . ]- T
- - - - - -10 r K gngMg_
. _n 266sL 6 ia6g970 2L3 g6 _ rgs9___
- *=.- - m._eem e .
,. , . - - e #. - . , - - .-e- .---e- -@-.- . _-e
.-, - - - - - - . . * - . . , - - - . m.m
_ee --N -
o._. - - w~ ._+.--me-- -e- -me.+w -w -*-ww_w
- i, .e
- i
- EVA/6// 4 i,
. l
. ~
}
I BEFORE THE GECRGIA FUBLIC SERVICE CO:SIISSIO!i KEE'.,"dA!! CHOI Docket !!c. 312C-U Georgia Power Compray Application To Increase service Rates _
~~
v DIRECT TESTI:101'Y and SUPPORTI!;G EXHIBIT b/2 FOR THE CECRGIA PU3LIC SERVICE CC:CISSIO:1
's.
- 1979
.--~ . - - . .
DIRECT TESTIMO.7 OF KEEWHAN CHOI Q. Please state your name, address, and occupation. ,
A. My name is Keewi.an Choi and my address is 1122 Springdale Road N.E.,
Atlanta, CA 30306. I am a Professor of Mathematics at the Georgia State bniversity, currently on leave of absence.
Q. Please describe your educational background.
A. I received my Bachelor's degree (1953) in Mathematics from the Case Western Reserve University and both my M.A. (1960) and Ph.D. (1963) in Statistics from the Harvard University.
Q. Please describe your professional experience .
A. I taught Statistics at the Coraell Universiev (1962-1966), and at the University of Missouri (1966-1963). Since ?972, I have been teaching Statistics at the Georgia State University. I was a Research Associate in Statistics at the Atocic Bomb Casualty Commission (o'f the U. S. Acade=y of Sciences and the Japanese Depart =ent of Public Health) from 1968 to 1972. In additica to my full-ti=e teaching activities , I have served as a consultant on Statistical Methods to the Health Systems Reccarch Group at Georgia Institute of Technology, National Cancer Insri-tute and Of fice of the Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Q. Have you testified in previous rate proceedings?} }io A. Yes. I testified be:are che Georgia Public Service Cct,ission in 1977 (Dackee Nc. 2002-U), under a contrac t with the Ccorgia Public
Serv ice Ccmmis sion. My testimony covered the following three areas:
- 1. Evaluation of the Georgia Power Ccmpany's Allocated Cost of Service Study.
2 Evaluation of the Company's forecasting method for the integrated system peak demand.
- 3. Evaluation of the Cocpany's revenue projection by customer class for 1977 and 1978.
Q. Picase describe the purpose of your testimony. A. My testimony das prepared under a contract with the Georgia Public Service Co= mis sion. My testimon) covers the following area:
- 1. Evaluation of the Georgia Power Company's forecasting =ethod for the integrated system peak demand.
Q. Picase give your evaluation of the Company's forecasting method
\
for the integrated s, stem peak demand. A. The Company's forecasts of the annual system peak demand for years ~ 1978-1992 are not re1{able for the following 5easons:
- 1. Very small amount o' data (only 14 past peak demands to forecast 16 future manual peak de= ands) were used for
~ '~ ~
forecasting.
- 2. The Company's so-callid '"we ather-normalization" process is.,
}
logically inconsist5nt.
- 3. The Cocpany's econometric model for forecasting the peak demand is very unstable because of the collinearity.
Q. Please explain'the three reasons which made the Company's forecasting
" ~
~
method unreliable.
~
_3 A. 1. Small amount of data.
- The Company'used only 14 pa s t (annual) peak demands to for eca s t 16 future (annual) peak demands. The decreasing certainty of the exogenous variables in the econometric codel with the increasing length of the forecasting horizon and the small a=ount of historical data compounds the fotecasting error of.the Co=pany's method. -
There is a distinct 12-month cycle of monthly peak demands, which should be utilized to obtain more accurate forecasts.
- 2. "'n'es ther-nor=aliza t ion" pro c e s s .
The Company's so-called " weather-norcalization" proces; to modify actual (past) peak de=cnd ia logically inconsistent. A detailed discussion of the logical inconsistency was given in N. my direct testimony before the Public Service Cocaission in 1977 (Docket No. 3002-U).1 t
- 3. The collinearity problem for the Co=pany's econometric codel.
The cost serious defect in the Ccapany's method of forecasting the peak de=and is in its use of two econo.uic indicators, gross state product and total personal income (which was lagged one year), to forecast the peak demand. Thos two ind ica tor s are almost perfectly correlated. The correlation coef ficient between the two indicators (which was co=puted from the 1950 to 1978 data) is .996. It is a nell-known (se istical) fact that a cultiple regression equation (which is the Company's econcmetric model) based er highly correlated 1 See Appendix 1 for a copy of the discussica. 522 ?I2
- independent variables (two economic indicators) is very unstable.
Such a problem is called "collinearity" proLica. (See, for instance, Data Analysis and Regression by F. Mosteller and J. W. Tukey (1977) Addison Wesley). The Cenpany's peak demand forecast will change by a large amount when either one (or both) of the econcaic indicators is changed slightly. In other words, small changes in gross state prcduct or total personal income (which are forecasts the=selves) vill cause a large change in the forecasted peak de=and. The consequences of collinearity of two economic i'dicators is so severe that a si=pler cethod of forecasting the peak demand using only the gross state produce alone is core accurate than the Company's method of forecasting the peak demand using the two economic indicators A and "wcather-nor=alized" peak demand data and adjusting the forecasts for the effec.ts of air conditioner ownership, electric transportation Y and natural gas. In the following table, the actual peak de= ands for 1977 and 1978 are compared with the Cc=pany's forecasts (=ade in 1977) and the forecasts frce the simpler econometric model which uses only aros3 , , , Jdu jl) state product as an economic indicator. Actual Company The simpler Year p e a k (.'nJ ) Forecast forecast 1977 9,631 10,093 (over 4.8%) 9,297 (under 3.5*:) 1973 10,113 11,429 (o- a 13. 0~:) 10,373 (over 2.17) The simpler codel is of the same form as the Company's econemetric model, with one economic ind ic a to r . The data used for the simpler
model were the annual peak demands for the years 1950-1976. The value of R is .985 for the si=ple =cdel. Q. Has the Georgia Power Ccapany used the similar econometric model for the peak demand forecast in 1974? A. Yes, the Company used tb. similar model in 1974 to forecast annual peak demands for the years 1975 to 1983. Q. Please ccapare the Ccapany's forecasted peak demands with the actual peak demand for the years 1975 to 1978. A. The following table presents the actual peaks, the Company's 1974 forecasts (using the 1960-1974 data) and the Company's 1977 fore-asrs (using the 1963-1974 data). Actual 74 Company 77 Coapany Year y ak (MW) forecast foreca s t 1965 8,795 9,888 (over 12.4%) N* 1976 9,150 10,878 (over 18.9~) 1977- 9,631 11,'967 (over 24.2%) 10,093 (over 4.8~) 1978 10,113 13,165 (over 30.2~) 11,429 (over 13%) Q. In your testimony in 1977, you evaluated the Company's forecasting method and also presented your own peak 'emand forecast using the Box-Jenkin's method. How did your forecasts cocpare with the Company's forecasts? A. My forecast for the 1977 peak demand was under 2.6%, while the Company's furecast was over 4.8".. For 1978 my forecast was under 2.4%, while the Ccapany's forecast was over 13.0%. Q. What is your recommendation for forecasting the peak demand through 1992? A. I recommend that the Ccapany cake the forecasts by several dif ferent methods of forecasting, including econometcic method and Box-Jenkin's nethod, and the X-ll program by the U. S. Census Bureau. 522 314
. Q. I! ave you made forecasts using the Sox-Tankin's =cthod?
A. 't e s , I have. The following table gives the forecasts made by the Box-Jenkin's method (using conthly peak demand data for the period of January 1960 to December 19'/8) with one regular diffe.ence, one seasonal difference of order 12 and threc coving averages of order 1,10 and 12 each. , 1979 Company Forecast Q F.7 ) My Forecast
-(
g Year 1979 11,023 "i,885 Q' S$0 1980 11,695 10,250 1981 12,282 10,629 1982 12,817 11,022 1983 13,335 11,429 1984 14,058 11,850 s 1985 14,77' 12,289 1986 15,427 y 12,743
^
1987 16,056 13,213 1988 16,651 13,702 1989 17,317 14,208 1990 18,029 14,733 1991 18,779 15,277 1992 19,546 15,841 Based on your peak demand forecasts, w.ia t is y our foret.a s t o f the ra te o f Q. increase for the annual peak demand for the next 14 years? 5"?)
\1
5 A. 3.7 p:r cent.
Q. 'sha t is the consequence o f the Company's over-forecas ts o f the peak de .a:.6 in 1974 and 1977?
t i A. Since the Company based its 10 year generating plant construction , program on the long term forecarts of the peak demand, the over-forecasts of the peak demand have resulted in the present (February 1, 1979) construction program with the capa_ city =uch bigger than the Company's forecasted needs through 10 9.
\.
. y
Appendix I The following statements on the "seather normalized" load were included in my direct testimony before the Public Service Commission in 1977 (Docket No. 3002-U): l' There is a logical inconsistency in using so-called " weather-normalized" loads in the econotetric model to forecast annual peak loads. (i) For each year between 1960 and'1975, the so-called " weather-normalized" i load was obtained by adding the " residual" to a load which was obtained fro = a regression equation of the 'aily peak lead by substituting the nine year (1967-1975) average values of the four temperatures and Julian dates of the peak de=and days. Adding the " residual" to the fitted values frcs regression equ: tions invalidater the entire. theoretical basis for regression analysis. Using such " weather-normalized" loads as annual peak loads in the econometric model is devoid of any theoretical or ; empirical justification. In the set- of regression equations, daily peak , i demand is assu=ed .to be a fu. ction o f f our te=peratures and Julian date. ' On the other hand, in the econocetric model, annual de=and is assumed to ' be a function of the Georgia State Froduct (GSP) and the Total Personal Incoce of the previous year (TPY). Absent in Exhibit 56 is any discussion o f the co=patability of the so-called " weather-normalized" loads (which vere obtained from the first set of regression equations) with r.he defini-tion of ar nual peak load in the econc=etric codel. (ii) Every one of the actual (annual) peak de= ands from 1960 to 1975 was modified to a so-called " weather-normalized" load. See Attachment 3 in Exhibit 56. This " weather ncrmalization" process i= plies that the weather conditions (temperatures / of the peak demand days hav2 been C ) ?- J c/. < .
always abnormal _ so that the peak demand for each year has to be
=odified to obtain the " weather-nor=alized" peak demand which would have been the peak demand if the weather conditions had been normal.
In such a case, how does one estimate what would be a peak demand under nor=al weather conditions? 522 318
I- . . n .<.,
, . c; . . c. ...t
[Xh/b/ h
!i. G. ."hI f - .f r.
rn ..m - ., N ac,,, se,a uc:mrf May 9, 1978 ,, ,
, Mr . harry W. Wright
. Executive Vice Presid2nt &
, General Manager i
Seminole Electric Cooperative 2410 East Busch Boulevard - Suite 129 - Tampa, Florida 33612
Dear Mr. Wright:
Georgia Power Company has under construction two 1150 did PUR nuclear generating units at Plant Vogtle in Burke County, Georgia, near Augusta. These units are currently scheduled to begin ccamercial operation in the mid-1980's. Undivided ownership interests in ' e plant are presently held as follows: t Georgia Power Ccmpany 50.7% Oglethorpe Electric Membership Corporation 30.0% Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia 17.7% City.of Dalton 1.6% t Under the ter=s of the contracts covering this joint ownership, Georgia P w".r has the unfettered right to sell up to an addi-tional 30*'. interest in Plant Vogtle if the sale is consu==ated befora January 27, 1979; thereafter it may sell any portion of its 50.7% interest subject to a right of first refusal of the other participants. It may also make uait power sales frca the units. The latest ecenc=etric informaticn available to Georgia Pcwer indicates that the electrical load growth of its service territory may 'ce less thar. previcusly anticipated. In the resulting restudy of our generation expansion program for the 1980 decade, we may find it prudent to sell an additional cwnership share in or unit power frca Plant Vogtle. At sccetime in the past, your organica'tice indicated an interest in Plant Vogtle, either orally c. in writing. Please advise if your organization still has an interest in this subj ect and whether you wish to be contacted further about it. Sinc erel:/ , lf y//a m I
/
3 H. G. 3aker, Jr EG3Jr/cpw rs ", ) ; )Q L- J .
..:. ,et .
., :. i . . ,
. - 1, *, : m . la ; , i,,si H. G. Ca':: r, Jr.
Cowar V.cc rt y..ct:m
%cr ces f May 9, 1978 r. . . w?, ,.:, :ve .:, r ,
Mr. W. M. Irving, Managing Director
,7'Jacksonville Electric Authority
. O. Box 53015 0' Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Dear Mr. Irving:
Georgia Power Ccarany has under construction two 1150 MW PWR nuclear generating units at Plant Vogtle in Burke Ccunty, Georgia, near Aurjusta. There units are currently scheduled to begin commercial operation in the mid-1980's. Undivided ownership interests in the plant are presently held as follows. Georgia Power Company 50.7% Oglethorpe Electric Membership Corporation . 30.0% Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia 17.7% City of Dalton 1.6% Under the ter=s of the contracts covering this joint ownership, Georgia Power has the unfettered right to sell up to an addi-tiona] 30% interest in Plant Vogtle if the sale is consummated before January 27, 1979; thereafter it may sell any portion of its 50.7% interest subj ecc to a right of first refusal of the other parsicipants. It may also make unit power sales from the unit.s. The latest econometric information available to Georgia Power indicates that the electrical load growth of its service territory may be less than previously anticipated. In the resulting restudy of our generation expansion program for the . 1930 decade, we may find it prudent to sell an additicaal cwnership share in or unit pcwer from Plant Vogtle. At scoetime in the past, your organitation indicated an interest in Plant Vogtle, either orally cr in writing. Please advise if your organization still has an interest in this subj ect and whether you wish to be contacted further about it. Sincerely, f (
%/hh H. G. Baker, Jr.
[- 6 -) HG Jr/co.w 5/< - 7?0 s -
.i,.
li -it.i+. .. -
. .u ru us a m-
\ , ; .g fN 't * !;I A '
i14'
!!. G. G A cr.Jr.
F.anct ve iw .:.o ac cr cciacq May 9, 1973 ,,,,,m..,,,,,.,,..,.,.,,,
, Mr. E. A. Adocat
.' Executive Vice President
,.y Florida Power & Light Cocpany P. O. Box 013100 Miami, Florida 33101 -
Dear >b. Adocat:
Georgia Power Cc=pany has under construction two 1150 MW PWR nuclear generating units at Plant Vogtle in Burke County, Georgia, near Augusta. These units are currently scheduled to begin co==ercial operation in the mid-1930's. Undivided ownership interests in the plant are presently held as follows. Georgia Pm. - company ' 50.7% Oglethorpe atric Me=bership Corporation 30.0% Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia 17.7% City of Dalton 1.6% Under the terms of the contracts covering thi: joint ownership, Georgia Power has the unfettered right to sel; up to an addi-tional 30% interest in Plant Vogtle if the sal = is consurmated before January 27, 1979; thereafter it may sell any portion of its 50.7% interest subject to a right of first refusal of the other participants. It may also make unit power sales from the units. The latest econometric information available to Georgia Power indicates that the electrical load growth of its service territory may be less than previously anticipated. In the r sulting restudy of our generation expansion program for the 1930 decade, s' may find it prudent to sell an additional ownership share in or unit pcwer from Plant Vogtle. At sacetime in the past, your organization indicated an interest in Plant Vogtle, either orally or in writing. Please advise if your organitation still has an interest in this subject and whether you wish to be contacted further about it. (
"-?1 o
dancerety, 524
/ /
/us < '
GT ~ / E. G. Baker, Jr. HG3Jr/cpw
r, . n ,.i;,
., ,, n te .
M. G. C M.:r Jr. Sco.cr '/::a Pmm:m - eme ecm,c:y ,ay 9, ,19 /., 8 d
;r. , . .m . , :r n ..m f, .
Mr. Alton g kall
. : Executive Vice President &
y General Manager e North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation P. O. Box 27306 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Wall:
Georgia Power Co=cany has under construction two 1150 FD7 PWR nuclear generating units at Plant Vogtle in Burke County, Georgia, near Augusta. These units are currently scheduled to begin com=ercial operation in the mid-1980's. Undivided ewnership interest, in the plant are presently held as follows: Georgia Power Company 50.7% Oglethorpe Electric Membership Corporation 30.0% Municipal Electric Authcrity of Georgia 17.7% City of Dalton 1.6% Under the terms of the contracts covering this joint ownership, Georgia Power has the unfettered right to sell up to an addi-tional 30% interest in Plant Vogtle if the sale is consu= mated before January 27, 1979; thereafter it may sell any portion of its 50.7'/ intereat subject to a right of first refusal of the other participants. It may also make. unit power sales from the units. The latest econocetric information available to Georgia Power indicates that the electrical load growth of its service territory may be less than previously anticipated. In the resulting restudy of our generation expansion program for the 1960 decade, we =ay find _: prudent to sell an additional ownership share in or unit power from Plant Vogtle. At sometime in the past, your organization indicated an interest in Plant Vogtle, either orally or in writing. Please advise if your organization still has an interest in this subj ect and whethe. you wish to be contacted turther , about it. Sincerely,
,) , hq i ,/
L -"
, l u, - . m, E. G. Ba.;er , Jr .
HG3Jr/ cow - i
i.. ' . . . i '. s . . u, e r oi; , .u*
,..e.,,
c s i,.a
!!. G. C e l= r, 'r.
Pice..en:
,,C.r.ic e ', c :
- .u r cc.,<ce, May 9, 1978 ,,,,..,,,.,y,,. ,..,,,,
Mr. Marshall R. Dorsey J General Manager 1 Big River 5 Electric Corporation C' P. O. Box 24 Henderson, Kentucky 42420 .
Dear Mr. Dorsey:
Gevrgia Power Company has under construction two 1150 FJ P'4R nuclear generating units at Plant Vogtle in Burke County, Georgia, near Augusta. These units are currently scheduled to begin co==ercial operatica in the mid-1980's. Undivided ownership interests in the plant are presently held as follows: Georgia Power Company , 50.7% Oglethorpe Electric Membership Corporation 30.0% Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia 17.7% City of Dalton 1.6% Under the terms of the contracts covering this joint ownership, Georgia Power r:as the unfettered right to sell up to an addi-tional 30% interest in Plant Vogtle if the sale is consu==ated before January 27, 1979; thereafter it may sell any portion of its 50.7% interest subj ect to a right of first refusal of the other participants. It may also make unit power sales frc= the units. The latest econometric infor aticn available to Georgia Power indicates that the electrical load growth of its service territory may be less than previcusly anticipated. In the resulting restudy of our generation expansion program for the . 1980 decade, we may find it prudent to sell an additional ownership share in or unit power from Plant Vogtle. At sometime in the past, your organization indicated an interest in Plant Vogele, either orally or in writing. Please advise if your organization still has an interest in this subject and whether you wish to be contacted further about it. Sincerely, -,2 L 323'
. Wh '
H. G. Baker, Jr. HG2Jr/cpw
- ,e.
I '. ' a .
. . i,...._ . ..
- c. c.e :r.ar.
.%.mr vin Pre . 'ud P:..a oc:.my May 9, 1973 cr . . . . ., , , , z . . . . :, c . ,-:1
. 1: r
. Mr. M. C. Johnson, Vice President Soutn Carolina Electric & Gas Carpany
,.)
P. O. Box 764 Columbia, South Carolina 29218
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Cecrgia Pcwer Company has under construction two 1150 MW PWR nuclear generating units at Plant Vogtle in Burke County, Georgia, near Augusta. These units are currently scheduled to begin cc mercial operation in the mid-1980's. Undivided ownership interests in the plant are presently held as follows. Georgia Power Company 50.7% Oglethorpe Electric Membership Corporction 30.0% Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia 17.7% City of Dalton 1.6% Under the terms of the contracts covering this joint ownership, Georgia Power has the unfettered right to sell up to an addi-tional 30% interest in Plant Vogtle if the sale is consummated before .Tanuary 27, 1979; thereafter it may sell any portion of its 50./% interest ubject to a right of first refusal of the other participants. It may also make unit power sales frca the units. The latest econometric infor=ation available to Georgia Power indicates that the electrical load growth of its service territory may be less than previously anticipated. In the resulting restudy of our generaticn expansion program for the , 1980 decade, we may find it prudent to sell an additional ownership share in or unit power frca Plant Vogtle. At scmetime in the past, your organication indicated an interest in Plant Vogtle, either orally or in writing. Please advise if your organication still has an interest in this subject and whether you wish to be contacted further about it. Sincerely 572 324
\/ .
hk H. G. 3aker, Jr. HGE r/cpw}}